| Author |
Message |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 2212
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 5:36 pm: |     |
Jeremy,
Ok, we agree.
This shows how this forum medium is so open to misinterpretation.
I don't for a moment Jeremy believe in the Word faith heresy.
God the Father does not have a physical body.
I now wish I had never even asked questions about the pre-incarnate appearances of Jesus as this only caused confusion that I did not intend. Susan, you are correct. However, when Jesus did show up in the fiery furnace and to Abraham, it was then that He appeared in bodily form, but returned to his pre-incarnate spiritual state after that.
Anyway, no more speculation on that.
Jeremy, what do you think of Martin Luther's soul sleep doctrine? (Did I just open up another can of worms?) Here is Luther's excerpts on this:
On the immortality of the soul Luther said:
"One of the monstrous fables that form part of the Roman dunghill of decretals."
(BTW, this is Reformation Sunday when we honor Martin Luther and his posting of the 95 theses)
More on soul sleep from Martin Luther: (I love this quote)
"For just as one who falls asleep and reaches morning unexpectedly when he awakes, without knowing what has happened to him, so we shall suddenly rise on the last day without knowing how we have come into death and through death...we shall sleep until He comes and knocks on the little grave and says, Doctor Martin, get up! Then I shall rise in a moment and be happy with Him forever."
But again, Luther's view is not the SDA view, as Luther clearly believed in the doctrine of the human spirit.
We are told really very little about the intermediate state, but I believe that as Paul said we depart and are with Christ. Whether that means a sweet dream restful sleep or other conscious joy is not revealed by scripture.
However, the Bible is very clear that our hope is in the resurrection of our bodies at the last trump, and not at the time of death which one group I know of has taught.
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 2214
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 6:11 pm: | |
Oscar Cullman was a Reformed Lutheran theologian who agreed with Luther's view apparently, and Jeremy or Colleen, if you get time, I would like your opinion on his view of soul sleep:
http://www.geocities.com/pastorkeith/cullmann.html
It certainly is not the view of soul sleep that I was exposed to in Adventism, but it represents a quite reasonable approach in my opinion. See what you think. Here is an introductory statement from the web master presenting this online article:
"On April 26, 1955, Oscar Cullmann, a theology professor at the University of Basel and at the Sorbonne in Paris, delivered the Ingersoll Lecture on the Immortality of Man at Harvard University's Andover Chapel. The lecture was subsequently published as IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL OR RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD?: THE WITNESS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Cullmann, a traditional Reformed theologian, was at the time a well known New Testament scholar, noted especially for his works on the early Church."
IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL OR RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD? was to be his finest work, proclaiming the Christian truth in a culture which had forgotten it. It not only affirmed my own views but challenged them and enhanced them as well. He states the traditional Christian view far more capably and eloquently than I ever could. This book is not for the weak at heart, for the truth it espouses is far more exciting than any pagan notion of flying spirits...it is the Good News that Jesus Christ has conquered death and is alive forevermore...and because he lives, we too shall live.
-------------------------------------------------
Would appreciate your thoughts.
Stan
|
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1574
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 7:07 pm: | |
Stan, I have heard that Luther only toyed with the idea of soul sleep, but that he then rejected it. Of course Leroy Froom used that quote I'm sure to say that Luther taught soul sleep, and I've heard that he misrepresented many Christian figures in claiming that they taught soul sleep (and even if they did it was not the same as SDA's teaching, as you mentioned!)
As for that quote, I disagree with it, as the Bible is clear that the dead are more conscious than in a "dream state." Oscar Cullman and his view was discussed on this forum earlier this year on this thread.
And I still stand by what I posted on that thread:
quote:As for a "sleep" state of not being totally unconscious but also not being totally conscious or conscious of your surroundings, etc.--the Bible does not support that either. The verses that Jackob posted (Revelation 6:9-10) shows this, and Jesus' account in Luke 16 definitely shows this. The dead are fully conscious, aware of their surroundings and what's going on around them, etc. They can still hear, talk, communicate, see, move around, etc. In hell, even the physical "phantom pain" is so real that it as if the person still has a body (see Luke 16, and also a great explanation of this in The Problems of the Afterlife by Samuel Fisk, which is available through http://www.sdaoutreach.org/).
--http://rtinker.powweb.com/discus/discus/messages/11/4442.html?1151796027
And I'll just leave it at that, since I don't want to get into a debate about this. 
Jeremy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1575
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 7:21 pm: | |
Of course the sdaoutreach.org site is now http://www.exadventist.com/ if anyone is interested in ordering that book.
Jeremy |
Jeremy
Registered user
Username: Jeremy
Post Number: 1576
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 7:30 pm: | |
Susan,
I'm not aware of anything in EGW's writings about a "long flowing white beard" (a search turned up a similar description of the high priest, however)--but yes she definitely taught throughout her writings (and Adventism still teaches) that the Father has a body like Christ's body. Same thing as what Joseph Smith and the Mormons teach.
Of course, the result of that doctrine is polytheism--which both churches teach, saying that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are separate beings.
Jeremy |
Susans
Registered user
Username: Susans
Post Number: 57
Registered: 8-2006
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 7:40 pm: | |
Hi Jeremy,
Well, I told you I could be mistaken. I have tried to forget much of what I have read of EGW.
I do think I remember her talking about the Son coming to the Father when they were discussing the plan of salvation, and that 3 times Jesus was shut in with the Father. That, if I understand correctly, would mean that they were separate. Polytheism, yes.
Such a tangled mess... |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 446
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 8:15 pm: | |
Stan, that was interesting about what Luther wrote (or toyed with, I don't know which). Thanks for sharing. |
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 854
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 8:22 pm: | |
Yes, Adventists love to quote Luther's brief toying with soul sleep to somehow get rid of purgatory. Obviously, this topic was included when Luther said that he wished some of his earlier writings could be burned. The later writings of Martin Luther confirm that he did not believe in soul sleep.
Dennis Fischer |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 448
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 8:42 pm: | |
BTW, about the whole discussion over Stan's comment:
I think it's easier just to stick to John 1:14: "The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us."
What He looked like before, etc., well... I don't know. But we can rest content knowing He is from Father's bosom, that He was with Father in the beginning, and that He is God.
If we go too far beyond what is written, we will find ourselves arguing vehemently about whether or not angels are corpreal enough to balance on the head of a pin... |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 449
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 8:43 pm: | |
I'm glad Luther didn't wish the "early" 95 theses would be burned. |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 450
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 8:52 pm: | |
On another note...
I know that we think many things are important to "defend", and in a very similar sense we worry honestly about what we're "saying" to people who come by here just to look but don't comment. We honestly worry about "what we promote".
But in our effort to "defend" and make sure we're "promoting" the right views, we need to be extra, extra careful about the message that our arguments send... not the arguments, rather, but the way that we argue.
The witness of our loving reaction towards one another speaks much louder volumes. If we pick apart distinctions and then amplify them into aberrant or heretical teachings, we end up showing very little grace towards one another -- even towards one another whom we consider loved family in Christ!
I posted a little of something that Cforrester wrote on this thread, but sadly it went somewhat unnoticed or without comment. But what he wrote is not the first time I have heard people grieve over these things.
(Message edited by agapetos on October 29, 2006) |
Agapetos
Registered user
Username: Agapetos
Post Number: 451
Registered: 10-2002
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 8:58 pm: | |
Jeremiah, could you recommend a book about early church history? I've been wanting to read a little bit for awhile, and Wikipedia makes my eyes hurt after too long. Come to think of it, so does the forum, haha! The computer is going to force me to get glasses someday...
But anyway, I've appreciated some of the Justin Martyr quotes you've shared, but at the same time, the length and theological depth of them has been difficult. Hence I've mostly just skimmed. I've found the same thing with other writings, such as Ireneus, etc. This kind of dates back to my philosophical period when I found that I preferred Dostoevsky to philosophical writings. The narrative really, really helped. I'm a story-reader, not an argument-reader.
So I'm kind of hoping there's a book that can tell the narrative of the early church. I remember some years ago first reading the beginnings of Foxe's Book of Martyrs and being emotionally shocked to learn that Timothy was martyred... you know, after reading Paul's letters, the "kid" kind of grows on you!
Anyway, let me know if you have any suggestions or recommendations. Oh, and of course, nothing that is an apologetic for any denomination or church. Thanks a lot! |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 2216
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 9:17 pm: | |
Dennis and Jeremy,
I was not quoting from an Adventist source.
I have done a lot of research independent of SDA sources.
Edward Fudge was not an SDA, and he was the one that quoted from Luther on this.
Sda's doctrine of soul sleep is wrong! Please don't misunderstand.
However, other evangelicals doctrine of soul sleep including Luther's is not heretical.
The concept that is aberrant if not heretical is the doctrine I was taught at a major non-denominational church and that is the one that we get an actual body when we die. I would like to see where that is supported by scripture or any reputable Christian teacher.
There are two extremes---SDA being one which I totally reject, but diminishing the importance of the resurrection is another error that is almost as bad.
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 2217
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 9:32 pm: | |
And what is really interesting, Edward Fudge's book "The Fire That Consumes" has a forward by F.F. Bruce, a great Christian theologian.
I am really enjoying reading Fudge's book right now. This is a truly scholarly approach to an alternative view to eternal conscious torment. There is a lot of evidence that traditionalists have overlooked and will not deal with.
Edward Fudge is also reformed in his soteriology.
It is great to read authors like him and Philip Hughes and John Stott who are on the opposite end of SDA on the gospel of grace but also see the merits of considering an alternative view to the fact that God will mete out the appropriate judgment for sin, but He will not torture his creatures for an eternity!
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 2218
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 9:42 pm: | |
Ramone,
Thanks for that link to our brother C Forresters blog with the comments that are really true, and I would like to highlight them here:
The Real Sin of Adventism
by Curtis Forrester
While I myself did not agree with many of the fundamental teachings of Adventism, I found the dissenters more objectionable. Much of what they focused on was trivial misunderstandings. They seemed to howl over whether or not the dead are conscious when clearly we have just no idea. I donít even care. I know that after I die the next thing I will see is my savior. If it happens after Iíve fed a few thousand worms or happens when my ìsoulî rises to heaven, what do I care? I do wonder, however, how I can enjoy myself in heaven after I die when all my memories are decaying in my bodyÖbut thatís food for another thoughtÖor wormÖ"
"The tone on many of the websites is bombastic and sensational. This often kept me from reading what they had to say, and meant that I was left to dig up my own evidence or to continue to only hear the side of the Adventist theologians. Though the National Enquirer may from time to time have serious news, because of the general sensationalism it is dismissed as more hoax than news.
-------------------------------------------------
Well said Curtis Forrester, and thanks.
Thanks also Ramone for calling our attention to that quote.
Stan
|
Dennis
Registered user
Username: Dennis
Post Number: 857
Registered: 4-2000
| | Posted on Sunday, October 29, 2006 - 10:32 pm: | |
Stan,
I highly recommend the book, "TWO VIEWS OF HELL: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue," by Edward Fudge and Robert Peterson. It was featured in Christianity Today magazine several years ago. Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis gave Robert Peterson a sabbatical for his part in this dialogue. Peterson's chapter entitled "Seeing the Big Picture" really speaks powerfully on behalf of traditionalism.
Dennis Fischer |
Jeremiah
Registered user
Username: Jeremiah
Post Number: 159
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 5:32 am: | |
Ramone,
I honestly can't think of an overview/commentary on the early Christians that isn't biased. I mean, what would be the point of writing it?
I just had an idea though... try this;
http://www.amazon.com/Eusebius/dp/0825433282/sr=8-2/qid=1162214959/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-9475702-9596141?ie=UTF8&s=books
It should only have whatever bias there was in the 4th century and not be pushing some modern agenda. It's a wonderful modern english translation!
Jeremiah |
Ric_b
Registered user
Username: Ric_b
Post Number: 596
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 7:10 am: | |
Stan, Here is a link with another perspective on Luther and soul sleep.
http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/04/seventh-day-adventist-luther-soul.html |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 2222
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 10:44 am: | |
Dennis,
Yes, I agree. I am going to get Robert Peterson's perspective on this and that is the next book I am getting to put the two sides together and then decide for sure.
It is just that I had heard such misinformation from the traditionalist side about Edward Fudge and his scholarship. However, that changed when I saw F.F. Bruce put his credibility on the line by writing the forward. Bruce wrote the crowning and defining work on New Testament documents reliability "The New Testament Documents--are they reliable".
F.F. Bruce does not necessarily agree with all of Fudge's conclusions, but he can't understand the dogmatism and the vitriol that comes from both sides of this debate.
Edward Fudge's work is a 400 plus page work that is written in a balanced format. By the way, I think Morey's book "Death and the Afterlife" and this book by Fudge "The Fire that Consumes" should both be read by serious students on this subject. Also compare to see which Christian has more fruit of the spirit in the tone of their writing.
Fudge handles both arguments. He deals with every representative text in OT and NT on this and quotes the traditionalists just as much, if not more than the conditionalists. Amd he is even very critical of Leroy Froom at times for not fairly presenting the evidence, so as it is alleged of Fudge, he is no lackey for Leroy Froom.
Also Fudge's book is even acclaimed as excellent by those who oppose him on this. They do say he did a thorough and balanced job, even though in the end they disagree with him. Reformed Greek scholar John Wenham gave him especially high marks. So it is not a book that can be easily dimissed, and boy, have I heard some snide remarks from the likes of Robert Morey about Fudges' work.
Fudge also goes through the major works of the early church fathers with pros and cons, and he documents the Reformation findings well.
He does acknowledge that Luther was inconsistent in his views about conditionalism, but there is a very interesting historical point that he brings out. When Luther spoke about conditionalism, a pope issued a bull against him denouncing his views. Also Thomas More came down hard on Luther for his conditionalist views, so another prominent Christian martyr William Tyndale ran to agree with Luther on conditionalism and defend Luther. Tyndale was clearly a conditionalist, and he translated the Bible into English, and for doing this the Roman Catholic Church burned him at the stake.
But it was also the Anabaptists who were conditionalists, and John Calvin (who was most adamantly a believer in the immortality of the soul, even to the point of really sounding Platonic at times), wrote a very polemic and angry treatise against the Anabaptists regarding many subjects, and Luther was just as adamant against this group, so apparently he subjugated his views on soul sleep, so as to not taint himself while joining Calvin in opposing the Anabaptists. After that Luther did not push his views. That is one historical perspective.
Ric_b, that link won't come up now, so will check it out later.
Stan |
Riverfonz
Registered user
Username: Riverfonz
Post Number: 2223
Registered: 3-2005
| | Posted on Monday, October 30, 2006 - 8:48 pm: | |
Ric_b
I just read that link you referred to, and it is still confusing to me what Luther really believed about the intermediate state, although, I have read his writings like "Bondage of the Will" where Luther clearly believed in eternal torment.And he admitted a significant philosophical problem that exists in that those who cannot on their own free-will come to Christ unless drawn by Christ will still have to endure eternal torment. That is where my deepest philosophical problem is right now.
Dennis, Jacob, and Jeremy,
I was at a Reformed bookstore tonight and picked up Robert Morey's book "Death and the Afterlife", and I am very interested in comparing both Morey's insight with that of Edward Fudge's book "The Fire that Consumes" and compare the use of the Biblical texts. It does appear that Fudge's book has a lot more scriptures than Morey's. Just looking at the scriptural index in Morey's book tells me that he leaves out some of the texts that would help the annihilation position. Fudge includes all the texts with explanations that would hurt his own position.
I look forward to this exhaustive study of both positions, as I never did this before. I only accepted the eternal torment position because Walter Martin was very influential, and I after all was making that great break with Adventism.
Again, Fudge is not SDA, he is Reformed, and the same is true for Robert Morey. So further reports will be coming.
Stan |
|
