| Author | Message | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 30 Registered: 6-2006  |
I'm learning so much on this post. It's so helpful. A lot of it is stuff I've always taken for granted but didn't have the information to back it up. (Good or bad, doesn't that happen to an awful lot of people?) This is the kind of equipping I've been searching for... Thanks friends! :D Leigh Anne | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1370 Registered: 10-2004  |
Agapetos, Regarding your questions about 2 Cor. 5: 1. No, we can't displease God after we die. And I don't think that conclusion is necessary from the text. Just because we want to please God, does not meant that we have to be able to displease Him! But it may even be talking about being pleasing to Him based on the things we did while in the body (verse 10). 2. Yes, we are away from the Lord when alive. We are not in heaven in the physical presense of Jesus. When we die--we are!  3. No, verse 10 simply tells us that the judgement is about things done while we are in the body--and not things done apart from the body. I don't get what you were saying about Jesus' spirit being in paradise with the thief, instead of suffering. We say (with the Scripture) that Jesus' spirit went to paradise with the thief after He suffered/after He died. I don't understand what the problem is with that? Why would Jesus need to suffer after He died, after "it was finished"? Regarding Jude, are you trying to claim that he quotes a fictional account as a historical event? And you're saying that Isaiah contradicts Daniel? It sounds like you don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I suggest you read the latest issue of Proclamation! magazine on this topic. Regarding the Josephus quote: He was writing from a Jewish perspective. Josephus was a Jew (and not a Christian) who lived in the first century AD and witnessed the destruction of Jerusalem. He is a famous Jewish author. The Jews got their ideas about Hades/Sheol from the OT. Throughout the OT, Sheol is portrayed as the place of the dead and the dead are portrayed as conscious. Also, considering the resurrections recorded in the OT, it should not be surprising that the Jews may have known about the details of Hades/Sheol, passed down from those who had been there and witnessed firsthand what it was like. Jeremy | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1371 Registered: 10-2004 |
Agapetos, I just did a search regarding the discourse attributed to Josephus, that Chris quoted. It seems that it has been discovered that it was not written by Josephus, and that it was mistakenly included in Whiston's translation of Josephus' works. See this link. It appears that you are right that the author was a Christian. Jeremy | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 143 Registered: 10-2002  |
Hi all! You know, after reading the Josephus passage that Chris had posted on another thread (which was actually by Hippolytus, not Josephus), I found myself very refreshed. When I had been writing some of these things, I found myself becoming more and more certain or entrenched, but the sheer challenge of Hippolytus' claims (unwittingly in the name of Josephus) was refreshing, because it sent me back to Christ. It is wonderful to know that our certainty about any of these things is actually not so certain after all, that they are debatable. It refreshingly sent me back to Jesus to rest in Him and look to Him. Now, that the Josephus quote turns out to not be Josephus at all, I want to endeavor to still aim my whole life at Christ and not worry hard about the certainty/uncertainty of these things. Dennis--- Thanks for that quote from Morey. It's very balanced and informative. As to the question of how much of the parable is dogmatic, I think the quote doesn't make clear, but more importantly it highlights Jesus' points in telling the parable. To be sure, we're all arguing about something here that is rather peripheral compared to the heart of the parable, and the heart of the Gospel message. (I know someone is going to take offense at that last statement, so let me qualify it: Morey rightly said that the parable points out that either life and stuffering await us after death... this is true also whether we "sleep" before suffering or whether we're constantly in suffering until the final bigger suffering... the point is the eternal perspective of eternal consequences from believing or not believing in Christ and living a life of love/un-love. The temporal progression of these things is not the point; the eternal consequence is the point.) Jeremy--- I'll get to your first questions in the next post. First, thanks again for the link about the Josephus passage, and thanks further for the link about it not being written by Josephus at all. In sum (for those who didn't read the background Jeremy linked to), the passage was apparently written by Hippolytus of Rome (d.236 A.D.). Hippolytus was the first "antipope" (the first of a line of people to challenge the pope and himself be considered the true pope). Having discovered the identity of the author of the Hades discourse, I think I'll let it rest from the current conversation? At the same time, however, early Christian viewpoints may be very interesting. Here is one that I---for some odd reason---forgot to include earlier. Oscar Cullmann quotes it in his conclusion to his work (see links at the beginning of this thread). Cullmann referred to Justin Martyr (100-165 A.D.). A quick look at Wikipedia furnishes a larger chunk of the quote from Dialogue, chapter 80: Interesting, no? While I wouldn't nearly go to the extreme that Justin did (saying they are not Christians), at the same time I'm sure the situation is much different today. Nevertheless, Justin (and Cullmann) perceive the immortality of the soul (and with it, direct ascension to heaven upon death) as something in direct conflict with Christianity which preaches the resurrection instead. I suppose that the modern Christian view (or that held by most here at the FAF forum) would be an attempt to harmonize the two positions? The harmonized position can be argued from the NT without knowing anything about the early Christian vs. Greek debate that Justin Martyr and Oscar Cullmann refer to (setting aside the problem of the "sleep" metaphor and a few other things). At the same time, if the harmonized position is the original position, I wonder why Justin didn't make use what this position has in common with the Greek position in order to discuss things with them. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 144 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Jeremy--- I'll respond to your earlier questions in reverse order for the most part. ***** First, I'd better explain what I believe about Jude (and Enoch) before I get accused of believing that the Bible is errant. I've only looked at Enoch a few times, but Jude quotes from the opening paragraph if I remember right. What follows after that goes all over the place. I think it is possible that some of Enoch is inspired, and some of it is not. In making this distinction, I'm following what Paul wrote in 1st Thessalonians 5:20-21, "Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good." I think Jude was doing the same. He was free to use what was of God and discard or not mention that which was not of God. Of course we always walk a thin line when doing this. But I think Paul walked the same line when he referred to an altar or idol in Athens and when he quoted Greek & Cretan poets in order to lead people to Christ and wholeness in Him. My point in mentioning Jude/Enoch (and now Paul) is that Christians are able to quote from sources that are not entirely doctrinally authoritative in order to point people to God. If Christians like Paul & Jude could do this, then why not Christ Himself? ***** As for Isaiah and Daniel, I should not have mentioned them until later. That the Jews debated about whether the resurrection existed or not is seen in the book of Acts on more than one occasion and also in the synoptic gospels. I think that perhaps the apparent conflict of Isaiah and Daniel may have perhaps been a source of this disagreement among Jews. Now, for those two books' position: At a surface reading, Isaiah and Daniel do appear to contradict each other about the resurrection, but when we learn of the New Covenant and the shadows of the Old, we begin to understand that prophecy in the Old times was given in the shadows, not in the whole. Daniel's position is preferred because Isaiah contains more shadows. Yet for Jews who did not know Christ (the Light who clears up all the shadows), I can easily understand if perhaps Daniel & Isaiah might possibly have been a point of debate. We mustn't run from acknowledging apparent contraditions (and letting God resolve them), nor must we shut down people who point them out by instilling in them the fear of admitting that they see contradictions. We'll get much further by acknowledging problems and putting them into God's hands than we will by ignoring those who point out the problems as believing heresy. All that said, I believe the Bible is inerrant, but I can't always prove it, and I freely admit there are places where some small things appear to be in contradiction. I don't have the answer in every case, and I can't pretend to know the answers. What I do know, however, is God Himself, and every time there seems to be a problem, I take them to Him and He gives me His peace. Sometimes He explains the problem, sometimes He does not. When He does, more often than not my "question" fades when He pulls out from underneath me an assumption I was working from. In other words, sometimes things look like a problem, but that's because some of our parameters in the question were not straight. C.S. Lewis said that often the great puzzles we pose to God must sound like this: "Is 'yellow' square or round?" A quick example in my own life is when I knew God wanted me and my wife to be married and live together, but I apparently had no options or future job. We were sad and in despair because all our efforts to bring her to America seemed frustrated. Then when visiting her in September 2001, God told me to get married and live with her in Japan. I hadn't known I would be able to work and live in Japan---that option was not even on my horizon! The impossibility of us getting together (according to His will) existed because we were both looking at the idea of getting together in America. God pulled that paradigm out from underneath us, and well, Hallelu Yah!! A better example is the apparent conflict in the Old Testament between God's mercy and His justice. The answer? The Cross. One pastor said that where things God has spoken appear to be in contradiction, don't run away, because it is at that very point that God will reveal His glory. Again, I've done drama before, so I don't have a problem with using illustrations & dramatics to teach about God (like calling a woman and her daughter "dogs" in order to show soon after that by their faith, they were indeed children and not dogs as others had thought). I don't always need an illustration to be historically true because the illustration isn't the point; rather, the point is the point. This is the case with all of Jesus' parables. We who focus on Him don't need them to all be true stories (interestingly, though, Ellen White was fond of declaring that many parables were not fictional stories, but were in fact true stories---with the exception of the Lazarus story, of course! Ha!). ***** About Jesus' suffering, I guess I'd always assumed that "Death" was part of the suffering & separation. Arguing whether it was or wasn't, however, will make things get incredibly intricate. While others might be comfortable with that, I hope they'll respect that I'd rather not go too deeply into what feels like hair-splitting. Of course, in a sense we're already doing that here, and I started it. Of interesting note, however, I read Hebrews 5:7 and 1st Peter 2:23 last night and feel that they represent the same thought that Jesus said when He put His spirit in God's hands. I think it's more accurate to see Jesus' cry in harmony with those verses than to use it for proving/disproving a theology of what happens after death. ***** About 2 Corinthians 5--- I also believe that we cannot displease God after we die. I had written earlier: Again, there seems to be compelling argument for the non-sleeping belief, but the context of 2 Corinthians 5 (particularly verses 9-10) do not seem to lend support to it. If we remove verse 10 and only look at 9, then it would work better. We could even argue that "pleasing God" may be different than pleasing/displeasing, but verse 10 qualifies it by saying that we must appear before the judgment seat of Christ. You responded: Just because we want to please God, does not meant that we have to be able to displease Him! But it may even be talking about being pleasing to Him based on the things we did while in the body (verse 10). I also like the idea of "pleasing even though not being able to displease", but again, the context doesn't suggest it, since it's immediately connected by "for" and then run right into "appearing before Christ's judgment seat". Granted, this is not the greatest passage to talk about the free motivation for pleasing God, but nevertheless, verse 9's "goal of pleasing Him" is set precisely because "we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad." (verse 10) ***** Did you have a response to the three reasons I wrote that I couldn't limit the term "sleep" to the body alone? (In my post #130 above) Blessings in Jesus, Ramone | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4257 Registered: 12-2003  |
I really can't answer your questions, Ramoneóbut I do see the Greek position of the "immortal soul" SOUNDING similar to what the NT apparently teaches while delivering a different meaningómuch like Adventism's talk of salvation by grace through faith which, in practice, really isn't that at all! The Greek belief was that the soul was all that matteredówas all that was REAL. The physical world and manifestations were not "real", and at death, people would be freed from these physical shadows and released to eternal freedom. The soul rising and being free to go where it wished and function freely was the goal. Christianity, however, delivered the clear message that physical reality was equally important to spiritual reality. God not only redeems our spirits, He redeems our bodiesóand he even redeenms all creation in the new heaven and the new earth. the Greeks would have completely balked at that idea. Spirit was all that countedóall that survived. I see a clear difference between one's spirit going to be with Jesus, being aware of being with Him, hidden in Him, and the notion that one's spirit goes to heaven and is independent and free to roam about or even (as some believe) to function in new bodies. The Greek's idea was the "free to be independent" idea. The Bible, it seems to me, says it is very much better to die and be with the Lordóbut that "being with" doesn't suggest independent freedom. The spirit is with the Lordónot autonomous. Great insights, Ramone and Dennis and Jeremy! I'm enjoying reading these. Colleen | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 145 Registered: 10-2002 |
You know, I was just looking at the Justin Martyr quote and had a thought... We know the big problem for the Greeks may have been their belief in the inherent evil of the present creation (Plato's "shadows"). In that way we can attribute Justin Martyr's comments as condemning those who didn't believe in the resurrection of the body. But in looking at this again, I just realized that in answer to the idea of "the soul ascending to heaven", Justin answers the resurrection. It seems Justin's implication is that the resurrection is not only for the body, but also is a resurrection of the soul. | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 779 Registered: 4-2000  |
JUSTIN MARTYR ON THE RESURRECTION "The resurrection is a resurrection of the flesh which died. For the spirit dies not; the soul is in the body, and without a soul it cannot live. The body, when the soul forsakes it, is not. For the body is the house of the soul; and the soul the house of the spirit." (Chapter X) Dennis Fischer | ||
| Mwh Registered user Username: Mwh Post Number: 82 Registered: 4-2006  |
Thanks Dennis, is was in fact wondering how to draw a good picture of our three parts, body, soul and spirit. "For the body is the house of the soul; and the soul the house of the spirit." Thats a nice picture. God is awesome! | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4261 Registered: 12-2003 |
I recommend the chapter "The Creation of Man" from Wayne Grudem's "Systematic Theology" or its condensation, "Bible Doctrines". I'll quote a few passages, but the entire chapter is a really helpful, unified whole. In section D of the chapter, Grudem establishes that there are three descriptions of the essential nature of man: trichotomy, dichotomy, and monism. Trichotomists say man has three parts: body, soul, and spirit. "Though this has been a common view in popular evangelical Bible teaching, there are few if any scholarly defenses of it today. (I am not aware of any scholarly defense of trichotomy written in the twentieth century. The work by Franz Delitzsch, A System of Biblical Psychology, trans. R.E. Wallis [Edinburgh: T. & T. Clar, 1899], is the most recent.) Dichotomists say man has two parts: body and soul/spirit. "Those who hold this vbiew often agree that Scripture uses the word "spirit" (Heb. ruach and Gk. pneuma) more frequently when referring to our relationship to God, but such usage, they say, is not uniform, and the word soul is also used in all the ways that spirit can be used." Monism, he says, is "outside the realm of evangelical thought" and holds that "man cannot exist at all apart from a physical body, and therefore there can be no separate existence for any "soul" after the body dies (although this view can allow for the resurrection of the whole person at some future time)." "Once we have emphasized that God created us to have a unity between body and soul, we can go on to point out that Scripture quite clearly teaches thyat there is an immaterial part of man's nautre. Furthermore, when we look at the usage of the biblical words translated soul (Heb. nephesh and Gk. psyche) and spirit (Heb. ruach and Gk. pneuma), it appears that they are sometimes used interchangeably." For example, see John 12:27 and 13:21; Luke 1:46-47 where soul and spirit are used in a traditional Hebrew parallelism. Also, people who have died and gone to heaven or hell can be referred to either as soul or spirits. Compare Hebrews 12:23, "the spirits of just men made perfect" and 1 Peter 3:19, "spirits in prison", with Revelation 6:9, "The souls of those who had been slain for the word of God" and 20:4, "the souls of those who had been beheaded for their testimony to Jesus". "In addition to this interchange between the words soul and spirit, we can also observe that man is said to be either "body and soul" or "body and spirit." Jesus tells us not to fear those who "kill the body but cannot kill the soul," but that we should rather "fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell" (Matt. 10:38).Ö Soul seems to stand for the entire nonphysical part of man. "On the other hand, man is sometimes said to be "body and spirit." Paul warns the Corinthian church to deliver an erring brother to Satan "for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. 5:5)." "In a similar way, everything that the soul is said to do, the spirit is also said to do, and everything that the spirit is said to do, the souls is also said to do.ÖIf Scripture gave clear support to the idea that our spirit is the part of us that directly relates to God in worship and prayer, while our soul includes our intellect (thinking), our emotions (feeling), and our will (deciding), then trichotomists would have a strong case. However, Scripture appears not to allow such a distinction to be made. "On one hand the activities of thinking, feeling, and deciding things are not said to be done by our souls only. Our spirits can also experience emotions, for example, as when Paul's "spirit was provoked within him" (Acts 17:16), or when Jesus was "troubled in spirit" (John 13:21). It is also possible to have a "downcast spirit," which is the opposite of a "cheerful heart" (Prov. 17:22). "Moreover, the functions of knowing, perceiving, and thinking are also said to be done by our spirits. For instance, Mark speaks of Jesus "perceiving [Gk. Epiginosko, "knowing"] in his spirit" (Mark 2:8). When the Holy Spirit "bears witness with our spirit that we are chhildren of God" (Rom 8:16), our spirits receive and understand that witness, which is certainly a function of knowing something. In fact, our spirits seem to know our thoughts quite deeply, for Paul asks, "What person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him?" (1 Cor. 2:11)." "What then does Paul mean when he says, "May the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be kept sound and blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1 Thess. 5:23)?ÖPaul is probably here piling up synonyms for emphasis, as is sometimes done elsewhere in Scripture. For example, Jesus says, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind"(Matt. 22:37). ÖLikewise, in 1 Thessalonians 5:23, Paul is not saying that soul and spirit are distinct entities, but simply that, whatever we may call our immaterial part, he wants God to continue to sanctify us wholly to the day of Christ." There is much more in the chapter, but these quotes give a hint of how evangelical theologians see this issue today. Colleen | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1372 Registered: 10-2004 |
Agapetos, I don't know exactly what Justin Martyr believed, but I doubt he believed the dead are unconscious. He may have believed like Hippolytus that the dead still go to Hades. Or he may have simply been condemning the denial of the resurrection, in the quote you posted. I don't know. But I do know that the other early church fathers definitely believed the dead were conscious. Jeremiah has posted at least one quote that shows that on here before. I found the quote. It is by Clement of Rome and was written around 96 AD:
Notice that he uses the term "asleep" and also makes it clear that they are conscious. As for fictional stories, etc., I agree that the events in Jesus' parables did not necessarily actually occur. But if Luke 16 is a parable, it still describes events that could have taken place--in other words, it is based on reality and truth, as are all of His other parables. I've never heard of the idea that Jesus' death was part of His suffering, except from the false Faith Movement teachers who say that Jesus had to suffer in hell for our sins. Jesus was clear that it was finished right when He died. He did not have to suffer any more for our sins. He paid the penalty and finished the work on the Cross. He went to paradise that very day, as He promised the thief. He could not have just been "unconscious in the grave." He is GOD. Jeremy | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 780 Registered: 4-2000 |
IRENAEUS' Against Heresies "Men...consist of a body and a soul" (Bk.11, chap.XIII,3). "The soul, and the [physical]life which it possesses, must be understood as being separate existences. When God therefore bestows life and perpetual duration, it comes to pass that souls...henceforth endure [forever], since God has both willed that they should exist, and should continue in existence [after death]" (Bk. II,chap.XXXIV,4). Using Matt. 22:29f., "He is not the God of the dead, but of the living," Irenaeus demonstrates the doctrine of the resurrection and also that "the fathers...do indubitably live to God, and have not passed out of existence, since they are children of the resurrection" (Bk. IV, chap. V,2). Irenaeus then interprets the parable of the rich man in Hades as teaching conscious torment or bliss after death (Bk. II, chap. XXXIV). Dennis Fischer | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 146 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Jeremy--- I can't quite see how Clement's quote indicates consciousness. Can you highlight it? If it's the last part you're referring to, I think it sounds a lot like Revelation 14:13, 2 Timothy 1:12 and 4:6-8. ***** Everyone--- Now things have gotten interesting! The Justin Martyr quote I posted made things interesting, and then Dennis' next Justin quote made things even more interesting. And then Colleen's post about the differing views of Spirit/Soul/Body came on top of it! (By the way, Dennis & others--- did you find a good place to read Justin's Dialogue? The place I found was difficult to read... if you found a good one, can you post it? Thanks) Having read what Colleen quoted, wouldn't it seem apparent that Justin Martyr was a clear trichotomist and not a dichotomist? Paul seems to speak in all three ways at different times. When he speaks of "the dead", he does so in a sense that is much more wholistic, even monistic, when he talks of the resurrection. In the same way, he talks about "those who sleep" instead of "those whose bodies sleep". At times he sounds this way. At other times, he sounds dichotomist or trichotomist. What I think I believe about the 3-part vs. 2-part being debate is this: 1) We are three-part beings. I base this on not only 1st Thessalonians 5:23, but also on Hebrews 4:12 which suggests they can be divided into separate parts. But in large part I base it on what I've experienced (which hits closer to Romans 7-8), the "war in my members". 2) Sometimes (or often) the spirit & soul are used in the same way. When they are used in a three-part-way, however, there is more of a difference, I think. But again, I'm not so sure about this stuff. Dichotomists have a very valid point about how "spirit" and "soul" are often used interchangably. But I don't think this means that trichotomy is wrong. I think it might instead reflect a common usage for convenience, like saying "America" to refer to "The United States", when in fact there is much more to the name, particularly the two Americas, North and South America. 3) Ultimately, we must look to Christ and see these things through the New Covenant for understanding about spirit, soul & body. I believe we won't figure this out by regular methods, but it will be by revelation through personal relationship with Jesus. (And I have a sneaking suspicion that even then, it may not be fully explainable, but you never know...) ***** I'm still wondering what folks are thinking of how 2 Corinthians 5:10 influences 5:9, indicating that "away" and "at home" were both "in the body". Earlier I answered Jeremy: ***** Jeremy--- I never got your response on the three reasons I couldn't relegate "sleep" to the body alone. Here they are again: ***** How can we reclaim the Biblical word "asleep"? I continually pose the question of why today we have completely abandoned the term as useless, inadequate and even inappropriate because of our present theology. Doesn't anyone else find that incredibly strange? Have we "progressed", "grown" or "evolved" completely beyond the need for the term? I think that perhaps this might be tied to an over-emphasis on dichotomy or trichotomy. Because at times Paul (and others) speak in ways that sound monistic, dichotomistic and trichotomistic, it may be that in a sense they are all true. Whatever the case, perhaps a direct effect of all this is that we very rarely proclaim the hope of the resurrection from the dead, which was a very, very big thing for the early Church. ***** Still praying and looking to Him. In Christ, Ramone | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1373 Registered: 10-2004 |
Oh, that was another point I wanted to comment on--the continuing existence of the soul vs. the resurrection. Like Irenaeus said in the quote Dennis posted above, I see it as just the opposite. If the soul does not continue to exist/be conscious after death then there cannot possibly be a resurrection of the dead. If consciousness has ceased, the person is gone. A "resurrection" would only be a creation of a new person. Therefore, I see it as "soul sleep" vs. "resurrection." Those two are what are in direct opposition to each other. A resurrection requires the continuing consciousness of the person up until the bodily resurrection. In other words, the consciousness of the dead is part of the doctrine of the resurrection--it is what the resurrection doctrine entails. Jeremy (Message edited by Jeremy on July 05, 2006) | ||
| Dennis Registered user Username: Dennis Post Number: 781 Registered: 4-2000 |
THE NATURE OF MAN AND THE NATURE OF DEATH In his book, "Death and the Afterlife," Dr. Robert Morey concludes: "The Scriptures view man as the unique image-bearer of the God who, in reflecting unity and diversity, has a material and immaterial side. This invisible or immaterial side of man is called various names such as soul, heart, spirit, and mind. At death, man's two sides are separated, and his conscious mind survives the death of the body and experiences either bliss or torment in the hereafter. This is the consistent picture of the nature of man and the nature of death which is found in the Old Testament as well as the New Testament." (page 70) IS ANNIHILATIONISM BIBLICAL? "Just as universalism is the rage in liberal Christianity, so too annihilation is gaining momentum in conservative Christian circles. The question of course is--is annihilationism biblical? First, common sense dictates that a God of love and justice does not arbitarily annihilate the crowning jewels of his creation. Far from rubbing them out, He graciously provides us the freedom to choose between redemption and rebellion. It would be a horrific evil to think that God would create people with freedom of choice and then annihilate them because of their choices. Furthermore, common sense leads to the conclusion that nonexistence is not better than existence since nonexistence is nothing at all--as Norman Geisler aptly puts it, 'to affirm that nothing can be better than something is a gigantic category mistake.' It also is crucial to recognize taht not not all existence in hell is equal. We may safely conclude that the torment of Hitler's hell will greatly exceed the torment experienced by a garden-variety pagan. God is perfectly just, and each person who spurns his grace will suffer exactly what he deserves (Luke 12:47-48; Matthew 16:27; Colossians 3:25; Revelation 20:11-15;Proverbs 24:12). Finally, humans are fashioned in the very image of God; therefore, to eliminate them would do violence to his nature. The alternative to annihilation is quarantine. And that is precisely what hell is." (Excerpts from THE BIBLE ANSWER BOOK by Hank Hanegraaff, pp. 216-218) Dennis Fischer | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 147 Registered: 10-2002 |
Hi Dennis--- The plot thickens! Irenaeus (ca. 130-202) is an interesting fellow, who followed after Justin Martyr, but there is some overlap. Irenaeus' "Against Heresies" is interesting in the light that it was directed primarily against the gnostics. Justin clearly sounds trichotomist, but the quote from Irenaeus you posted sounds clearly dichotomist. If that was so, then we could concluded that perhaps there was not a clear consensus on these things even way back then! One thing is for sure: I'm getting more interested in reading about the first century of Christian history. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4264 Registered: 12-2003 |
Ramone, Regarding 2 Cor 5:9-10óI believe the NIV study notes (also used in the NASB study Bible) might explain the intent of this passage best: they say that the sense of verse 9 is whether we will be alive or dead when Christ returns, we make it our goal to please Him while in the body, because we will appear before the judgment seat of Christ. Colleen | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 114 Registered: 1-2004  |
Here are some quotes from the very earliest writers we have outside the Bible; From Clement in 95 AD; Chapter V. But not to dwell upon ancient examples, let us come to the most recent spiritual heroes. Let us take the noble examples furnished in our own generation. Through envy and jealousy, the greatest and most righteous pillars [of the Church] have been persecuted and put to death. Let us set before our eyes the illustrious apostles. Peter, through unrighteous envy, endured not one or two, but numerous labours and when he had at length suffered martyrdom, departed to the place of glory due to him. Owing to envy, Paul also obtained the reward of patient endurance, after being seven times thrown into captivity, compelled to flee, and stoned. After preaching both in the east and west, he gained the illustrious reputation due to his faith, having taught righteousness to the whole world, and come to the extreme limit of the west, and suffered martyrdom under the prefects. Thus was he removed from the world, and went into the holy place, having proved himself a striking example of patience. Chapter VI. To these men who spent their lives in the practice of holiness, there is to be added a great multitude of the elect, who, having through envy endured many indignities and tortures, furnished. us with a most excellent example. Through envy, those women, the Danaids and Dircae, being persecuted, after they had suffered terrible and unspeakable torments, finished the course of their faith with stedfastness, and though weak in body, received a noble reward. Envy has alienated wives from their husbands, and changed that saying of our father Adam, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." Envy and strife have overthrown great cities and rooted up mighty nations. From Ignatius in 107 AD; Chapter IV. I write to the Churches, and impress on them all, that I shall willingly die for God, unless ye hinder me. I beseech of you not to show an unseasonable good-will towards me. Suffer me to become food for the wild beasts, through whose instrumentality it will be granted me to attain to God. I am the wheat of God, and let me be ground by the teeth of the wild beasts, that I may be found the pure bread of Christ. Rather entice the wild beasts, that they may become my tomb, and may leave nothing of my body; so that when I have fallen asleep [in death], I may be no trouble to any one. Then shall I truly be a disciple of Christ, when the world shall not see so much as my body. Entreat Christ for me, that by these instruments I may be found a sacrifice [to God]. I do not, as Peter and Paul, issue commandments unto you. They were apostles; I am but a condemned man: they were free, while I am, even until now, a servant. But when I suffer, I shall be the freed-man of Jesus, and shall rise again emancipated in Him. And now, being a prisoner, I learn not to desire anything worldly or vain. From Polycarp; Chapter IX. I exhort you all, therefore, to yield obedience to the word of righteousness, and to exercise all patience, such as ye have seen [set] before your eyes, not only in the case of the blessed Ignatius, and Zosimus, and Rufus, but also in others among yourselves, and in Paul himself, and the rest of the apostles. [This do] in the assurance that all these have not run in vain, but in faith and righteousness, and that they are [now] in their due place in the presence of the Lord, with whom also they suffered. For they loved not this present world, but Him who died for us, and for our sakes was raised again by God from the dead. Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 115 Registered: 1-2004 |
Here's a must-read selection from Justin Martyr which should clear up a bit of what he believed and what the Greeks believed. Note; this selection comes from part of the account of Justin's conversion. He's dialoguing with a Christian at this point, while he's still an unconverted philosopher. (It's interesting that this portion of the dialogue may have happened before the first century ended). Chapter IV.-The Soul of Itself Cannot See God. "`Is there then, 'says he, `such and so great power in our mind? Or can a man not perceive by sense sooner? Will the mind of man see God at any time, if it is uninstructed by the Holy Spirit? ' "`Plato indeed says, 'replied I, `that the mind's eye is of such a nature, and has been given for this end, that we may see that very Being when the mind is pure itself, who is the cause of all discerned by the mind, having no colour, no form, no greatness-nothing, indeed, which the bodily eye looks upon; but It is something of this sort, he goes on to say, that is beyond all essence, unutterable and inexplicable, but alone honourable and good, coming suddenly into souls well-dispositioned, on account of their affinity to and desire of seeing Him.' "`What affinity, then, 'replied he, `is there between us and God? Is the soul also divine and immortal, and a part of that very regal mind? And even as that sees God, so also is it attainable by us to conceive of the Deity in our mind, and thence to become happy? ' "`Assuredly, 'I said. "`And do all the souls of all living beings comprehend Him? 'he asked; `or are the souls of men of one kind and the souls of horses and of asses of another kind? ' "`No; but the souls which are in all are similar, 'I answered. "`Then, 'says he, `shall both horses and asses see, or have they seen at some time or other, God? ' "`No, 'I said; `for the majority of men will not, saving such as shall live justly, purified by righteousness, and by every other virtue.' "`It is not, therefore, 'said he, `on account of his affinity, that a man sees God, nor because he has a mind, but because he is temperate and righteous? ' "`Yes, 'said I; `and because he has that whereby he perceives God.' "`What then? Do goats or sheep injure any one? ' "`No one in any respect, 'I said. "`Therefore these animals will see [God] according to your account, 'says he. "`No; for their body being of such a nature, is an obstacle to them.' "He rejoined, `If these animals could assume speech, be well assured that they would with greater reason ridicule our body; but let us now dismiss this subject, and let it be conceded to you as you say. Tell me, however, this: Does the soul see [God] so long as it is in the body, or after it has been removed from it? ' "`So long as it is in the form of a man, it is possible for it, 'I continue, `to attain to this by means of the mind; but especially when it has been set free from the body, and being apart by itself, it gets possession of that which it was wont continually and wholly to love.' "`Does it remember this, then [the sight of God], when it is again in the man? ' "`It does not appear to me so, 'I said. "`What, then, is the advantage to those who have seen [God]? or what has he who has seen more than he who has not seen, unless he remember this fact, that he has seen? ' "`I cannot tell, 'I answered. "`And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle? 'said he. "`They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment.' "`Do they know, then, that it is for this reason they are in such forms, and that they have committed some sin? ' "`I do not think so.' "`Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.' "`No indeed.' "`Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can perceive that God exists, and that righteousness and piety are honourable, I also quite agree with you, 'said he. "`You are right, 'I replied. Chapter V.-The Soul is Not in Its Own Nature Immortal. "`These philosophers know nothing, then, about these things; for they cannot tell what a soul is.' "`It does not appear so.' "`Nor ought it to be called immortal; for if it is immortal, it is plainly unbegotten.' "`It is both unbegotten and immortal, according to some who are styled Platonists.' "`Do you say that the world is also unbegotten? ' "`Some say so. I do not, however, agree with them.' "`You are right; for what reason has one for supposing that a body so solid, possessing resistance, composite, changeable, decaying, and renewed every day, has not arisen from some cause? But if the world is begotten, souls also are necessarily begotten; and perhaps at one time they were not in existence, for they were made on account of men and other living creatures, if you will say that they have been begotten wholly apart, and not along with their respective bodies.' "`This seems to be correct.' "`They are not, then, immortal? ' "`No; since the world has appeared to us to be begotten.' "`But I do not say, indeed, that all souls die; for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil. What then? The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished.' "`Is what you say, then, of a like nature with that which Plato in Timoeus hints about the world, when he says that it is indeed subject to decay, inasmuch as it has been created, but that it will neither be dissolved nor meet with the fate of death on account of the will of God? Does it seem to you the very same can be said of the soul, and generally of all things? For those things which exist after15 God, or shall at any time exist,16 these have the nature of decay, and are such as may be blotted out and cease to exist; for God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible. For this reason souls both die and are punished: since, if they were unbegotten, they would neither sin, nor be filled with folly, nor be cowardly, and again ferocious; nor would they willingly transform into swine, and serpents, and dogs and it would not indeed be just to compel them, if they be unbegotten. For that which is unbegotten is similar to, equal to, and the same with that which is unbegotten; and neither in power nor in honour should the one be preferred to the other, and hence there are not many things which are unbegotten: for if there were some difference between them, you would not discover the cause of the difference, though you searched for it; but after letting the mind ever wander to infinity, you would at length, wearied out, take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say that this is the Cause of all. Did such escape the observation of Plato and Pythagoras, those wise men, ' I said, `who have been as a wall and fortress of philosophy to us? ' Chapter VI.-These Things Were Unknown Plato and Other Philosophers. "`It makes no matter to me, 'said he, `whether Plato or Pythagoras, or, in short, any other man held such opinions. For the truth is so; and you would perceive it from this. The soul assuredly is or has life. If, then, it is life, it would cause something else, and not itself, to live, even as motion would move something else than itself. Now, that the soul lives, no one would deny. But if it lives, it lives not as being life, but as the partaker of life; but that which partakes of anything, is different from that of which it does partake. Now the soul partakes of life, since God wills it to live. Thus, then, it will not even partake [of life] when God does not will it to live. For to live is not its attribute, as it is God's; but as a man does not live always, and the soul is not for ever conjoined with the body, since, whenever this harmony must be broken up, the soul leaves the body, and the man exists no longer; even so, whenever the soul must cease to exist, the spirit of life is removed from it, and there is no more soul, but it goes back to the place from whence it was taken.' Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1374 Registered: 10-2004 |
Ramone, The following sentence is the one I was referring to from Clement's quote: "Blessed are those presbyters who, having finished their course before now, have obtained a fruitful and perfect departure [from this world]; for they have no fear lest any one deprive them of the place now appointed them." In answer to your three questions about "sleep": 1. Paul is telling them of the resurrection, which is the ultimate hope. But as I said above, this includes a continuing conscious existence of the dead until then. He does say in that passage in verse 14 that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep (died). Regarding verse 13, here is what the Jamieson, Fausett & Brown commentary says: "them which are asleep--The oldest manuscripts read present tense, "them which are sleeping"; the same as "the dead in Christ" ( 1Th 4:16 ), to whose bodies ( Dan 12:2 , not their souls; Ecc 12:7 2Cr 5:8 ) death is a calm and holy sleep, from which the resurrection shall waken them to glory. The word "cemetery" means a sleeping-place. Observe, the glory and chief hope of the Church are not to be realized at death, but at the Lord's coming; one is not to anticipate the other, but all are to be glorified together at Christ's coming ( Col 3:4 Hbr 11:40 ). Death affects the mere individual; but the coming of Jesus the whole Church; at death our souls are invisibly and individually with the Lord; at Christ's coming the whole Church, with all its members, in body and soul, shall be visibly and collectively with Him." (http://www.blueletterbible.org/Comm/jfb/1Th/1Th004.html) 2. I don't know if I really understand what you are getting at here. Sleep is obviously used as a metaphor since dead persons' bodies are not literally sleeping. It simply means that one day their bodies will "awake" and arise. When a person's spirit leaves their body, their body "sleeps," or dies (James 2:26). 3. I think the term "asleep" is not used within certain contexts today without clarifying what we mean, because there are cults which have come up with horrible Christianity-denying doctrines by misusing that term and saying that people don't have souls/spirits and thus they "sleep" when they die. Another similar example of this phenomenon in the Church is how some Christians don't like to use the Biblical term "Son of God" anymore without clarifying what they mean because of cults that love to misuse that term. It doesn't mean that we have a problem with these Biblical terms as relates to their proper use, however. I do think that some of us who have come from backgrounds where certain Biblical terms are misused, may be sensitive to them, however. For example, I know that it's been discussed on this forum before how some have been sensitive to the term "obedience" or "obey." Jeremy |
