| Author | Message | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 148 Registered: 1-2004  |
Check this out, relating to immortality of the soul; "but now in the times of your reign, having, as we before said, become Man by a virgin, according to the counsel of the Father, for the salvation of those who believe on Him, He endured both to be set at nought and to suffer, that by dying and rising again He might conquer death. And that which was said out of the bush to Moses, "I am that I am, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob, and the God of your fathers," this signified that they, even though dead, are yet in existence, and are men belonging to Christ Himself. For they were the first of all men to busy themselves in the search after God; Abraham being the father of Isaac, and Isaac of Jacob, as Moses wrote." Luke 20:37 "Now that the dead are raised, even Moses shewed at the bush, when he calleth the Lord the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. " 38 "For he is not a God of the dead, but of the living: for all live unto him." Justin here clarifies what Jesus meant... the righteous dead are conscious and not separated from Christ. So SDA's get to push the date of the apostasy to before 150 AD.  Or better yet, Jesus Himself apostatized from the truth? We know that can't be! Jeremiah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2187 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks Jeremiah for that quote. Do you know if he believed in eternal conscious torment in hell for the wicked? Because I had read before that he was an annihilationist but if that is true it goes to show that you can believe in the intermediate state and the doctrine of the human spirit and still believe in the eventual end of sin in the universe. Stan | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 150 Registered: 1-2004 |
Stan, I don't know for sure, but I'll see what I can find. Here's a quote from Justin's "Dialogue" in the meantime; ""`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.'" Jeremiah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2191 Registered: 3-2005 |
Thanks Jeremiah, I think that is the quote that some have used to show that there is an implication in that statement that all souls are not immortal, and it could be taken to mean that there is an intermediate state, and then final judgment that will be severe for as long God judges them, and the length of time is according to His purpose and will. Thanks Jeremiah, you have really become an expert on the early church fathers. Stan | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 151 Registered: 1-2004 |
Ok here's something a little more definitive, from the "Fragments of Justin's lost work on the Resurrection." "Chapter X.-The Body Saved, and Will Therefore Rise. 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. These three, in all those who cherish a sincere hope and unquestioning faith in God, will be saved. Considering, therefore, even such arguments as are suited to this world, and finding that, even according to them, it is not impossible that the flesh be regenerated; and seeing that, besides all these proofs, the Saviour in the whole Gospel shows that there is salvation for the flesh, why do we any longer endure those unbelieving and dangerous arguments, and fail to see that we are retrograding when we listen to such an argument as this: that the soul is immortal, but the body mortal, and incapable of being revived? For this we used to hear from Pythagoras and Plato, even before we learned the truth. If then the Saviour said this, and proclaimed salvation to the soul alone, what new thing, beyond what we heard from Pythagoras and Plato and all their band, did He bring us? But now He has come proclaiming the glad tidings of a new and strange hope to men. For indeed it was a strange and new thing for God to promise that He would not keep incorruption in incorruption, but would make corruption incorruption. But because the prince of wickedness could in no other way corrupt the truth, he sent forth his apostles (evil men who introduced pestilent doctrines), choosing them from among those who crucified our Saviour; and these men bore the name of the Saviour, but did the works of him that sent them, through whom the name itself has been spoken against. " Another quote from Justin's "Dialogue"; "Chapter VI.-These Things Were Unknown to 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.'" It appears to me that Justin believes that the soul can cease to exist, but the spirit never dies. So out of the 3 parts of man the body and the soul can be destroyed but not the spirit. Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 152 Registered: 1-2004 |
Here's something even more clear from Justin's "First Apology"; "For the prophets have proclaimed two advents of His: the one, that which is already past, when He came as a dishonoured and suffering Man; but the second, when, according to prophecy, He shall come from heaven with glory, accompanied by His angelic host, when also He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire with the wicked devils. And that these things also have been foretold as yet to be, we will prove. By Ezekiel the prophet it was said: "Joint shall be joined to joint, and bone to bone, and flesh shall grow again; and every knee shall bow to the Lord, and every tongue shall confess Him." And in what kind of sensation and punishment the wicked are to be, hear from what was said in like manner with reference to this; it is as follows: "Their worm shall not rest, and their fire shall not be quenched; " and then shall they repent, when it profits them not." Jeremiah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2192 Registered: 3-2005 |
Actually both conditionalists and traditionalists find quotations from Justin Martyr that could support either view. But, I want to know what he means about both body and soul being not immortal, but somehow the spirit lives on forever? This doesn't make sense, as we are created in the image of Christ as a body-spiritual entity, and either eternal torment means the torment of both soul and body, or it cannot be sustained. Malachi 4:1-6 clearly says the wicked will be destroyed root and branch, and be ashes under the feet, so at least it doesn't seem to mean the body. Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2193 Registered: 3-2005 |
Now here is a statement from Martyr that says that the wicked cease to exist from chapter 7 of the second apology: "by which the wicked angels and demons and men shall CEASE TO EXIST, because of the seed of the Christians..." Stan | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 153 Registered: 1-2004 |
I think the last quote I posted helps clarify this... "He shall raise the bodies of all men who have lived, and shall clothe those of the worthy with immortality, and shall send those of the wicked, endued with eternal sensibility, into everlasting fire" If we want to assume that Justin knew what he believed and didn't change his mind over his lifetime, I think we can say that Justin is correct that humans or any part of a human is not by nature immortal, and at the same time, Justin can also be correct that the punishment of the wicked is eternal. Just because God could at any time cause the wicked to cease all forms of existence does not mean that God WILL do that. Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 154 Registered: 1-2004 |
Keep reading in the paragraph in question; "Wherefore God delays causing the confusion and destruction of the whole world, by which the wicked angels and demons and men shall cease to exist, because of the seed of the Christians, who know that they are the cause of preservation in nature. Since, if it were not so, it would not have been possible for you to do these things, and to be impelled by evil spirits; but the fire of judgment would descend and utterly dissolve all things, even as formerly the flood left no one but him only with his family who is by us called Noah, and by you Deucalion, from whom again such vast numbers have sprung, some of them evil and others good. For so we say that there will be the conflagration, hut not as the Stoics, according to their doctrine of all things being changed into one another, which seems most degrading. But neither do we affirm that it is by fate that men do what they do, or suffer what they suffer, but that each man by free choice acts rightly or sins; and that it is by the influence of the wicked demons that earnest men, such as Socrates and the like, suffer persecution and are in bonds, while Sardanapalus, Epicurus, and the like, seem to be blessed in abundance and glory. the Stoics, not observing this, maintained that all things take place according to the necessity of fate. But since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed. And this is the nature of all I that is made, to be capable of vice and virtue. For neither would any of them be praiseworthy unless there were power to turn to both [virtue and vice]. And this also is shown by those men everywhere who have made laws and philosophized according to right reason, by their prescribing to do some things and refrain from others. Even the Stoic philosophers, in their doctrine of morals, steadily honour the same things, so that it is evident that they are not very felicitous in what they say about principles and incorporeal things. For if they say that human actions come to pass by fate, they will maintain either that God is nothing else than the things which are ever turning, and altering, and dissolving into the same things, and will appear to have had a comprehension only of things that are destructible, and to have looked on God Himself as emerging both in part and in whole in every wickedness;13 or that neither vice nor virtue is anything; which is contrary to every sound idea, reason, and sense." It is not rational to think that Justin would contradict himself in the same paragraph. I think we have to adjust our definition of the term "cease to exist" or we have to understand the circumstances under which Justin says it would happen. That way it won't contradict "since God in the beginning made the race of angels and men with free-will, they will justly suffer in eternal fire the punishment of whatever sins they have committed." We can learn from his comparison to the previous destruction of the world with the flood; just because people disappeared from the face of the earth doesn't mean they no longer had any sort of existence. From an Eastern Orthodox perspective, the fact of freewill is the proof of eternal punishment, because to take away existence is to take away freewill. You can't choose or regret your choices if you don't exist. Jeremiah | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2195 Registered: 3-2005 |
It is still a fact that many of the early church fathers were not entirely clear on eternal torment. I have a book which presents the evidence on both sides, but without clear unequivocal statements being made. That is why on the previous thread I pointed out that John Stott said that the biblical evidence is not clear enough to be dogmatic. Certainly I wouldn't truet the early church fathers for much doctrinal authority. Origen taught universal restoration after sinners have suffered the torments of hell for a specified time, even saying that the devil and his angels would be restored eventually. So the church fathers had all kinds of bad doctrines. I do respect Justin Martyr for the most part, but he was wrong on free-will as the bible doesn't teach man's free-will with regard to salvation. Stan | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 155 Registered: 1-2004 |
Origen got himself in a bunch of trouble with that teaching... just ask the Orthodox and Catholics. He's considered a heretic for it. The real question is what has the whole church always believed, taught, and practiced from the beginning. If the Bible was completely clear that there is not free-will in regards to salvation, there would not be so many people who believe and teach free-will, I think. Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1564 Registered: 10-2004  |
"...as we are created in the image of Christ as a body-spiritual entity..." Whoa! Where did you get that from, Stan?? I've never heard of such an idea, and have never seen anything like that taught in the Bible. Could you explain what you're talking about? Jeremy | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4851 Registered: 12-2003  |
I'd also like to hear! Thanks, Stan. Colleen | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2197 Registered: 3-2005 |
Why is that statement so bad. We were created in the image of God with a body and soul or spirit, and as Philip Hughes said so well, he called it a corporeal-spiritual entity. Since Christ was God in human flesh, He was fully man bodily, and fully God as spirit? Does that clarify it? I fully accept the doctrine of the human spirit, but in so much of Christendom today, the spirit is given too much emphasis. It is the resurrection of the bodies at the second coming that is truly our blessed hope. I attended an "evangelical" megachurch where not only did they teach that you could lose your salvation. but the famous pastor of that church claims you get a spiritual resurrection body when you die. This is a clear example of what happens when there is not proper balance between body and soul. In fact that same church also taught the tri-partite nature of man, that is clearly not taught in scripture. It is the salvation of our bodies that is the ultimate hope. Christ came as a man to redeem us as a whole person--body and soul! Stan | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2198 Registered: 3-2005 |
In fact, I could have probably stated the nature of Christ somewhat better by just saying that He was fully God in every way, and fully man or fully human. That is why we look to Christ as He came as the second Adam to redeem us from the fall of the first Adam. Stan | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 431 Registered: 10-2002  |
Jeremiah, thanks for the quotes from Justin Martyr. I'm always blessed by the quotes you've shared of his. I think he'd be a cool guy to hang out with today. Anyhow, it's wonderful to hear thoughts now and then from brothers & sisters in the past. | ||
| Jeremiah Registered user Username: Jeremiah Post Number: 156 Registered: 1-2004 |
My favorite work of Justin's is the "Dialogue" because it's so relevant to us former SDA's and it's practically up-to-date with so many issues today. I agree that Justin would be a cool guy to hang out with today! I'd probably have to learn Greek though! Jeremiah | ||
| Jeremy Registered user Username: Jeremy Post Number: 1565 Registered: 10-2004 |
Stan, I had never heard the idea that you put forth, and so I was hoping you would explain it and the reasoning/Scripture used for it. What I was referring to was you saying that we are created in the image of Christ, in that we have a body as Christ does. In fact, that seems to go against Scripture and seems to get the order backwards, since it was for the purpose of redeeming man that God became man. He stooped down to become a man and take on a body! I don't see in Scripture that we were created in the image of Christ as far as body is concerned. In fact, like I said, I've never heard of that teaching before. Is that what Philip Hughes teaches in his book? Jeremy P.S. I don't believe it is accurate to say that the trichotomous view is clearly not taught in Scripture. See the following link from the Reformed site gotquestions.org: http://www.gotquestions.org/body-soul-spirit.html | ||
| Riverfonz Registered user Username: Riverfonz Post Number: 2201 Registered: 3-2005 |
Jeremy, What form did Christ take when He came down and visited Abraham? Did He not have a body prior to the incarnation? I think Abraham even prepared food for those visitors: "And the LORD appeared to him by the oaks[a] of Mamre, as he sat at the door of his tent in the heat of the day. 2He lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, three men were standing in front of him. When he saw them, he ran from the tent door to meet them and bowed himself to the earth 3and said, "O Lord,[b] if I have found favor in your sight, do not pass by your servant. 4Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and rest yourselves under the tree, 5while I bring a morsel of bread, that you may refresh yourselves, and after that you may pass on--since you have come to your servant." So they said, "Do as you have said." 6And Abraham went quickly into the tent to Sarah and said, "Quick! Three seahs[c] of fine flour! Knead it, and make cakes." 7And Abraham ran to the herd and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to a young man, who prepared it quickly. 8Then he took curds and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them. And he stood by them under the tree while they ate. 9They said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "She is in the tent." 10The LORD said, "I will surely return to you about this time next year, and Sarah your wife shall have a son." (Genesis 18:1-9) I have always wondered about these manifestations of God in the OT. But it is likely that these were special manifestations of God in Christ, and this would not mean that he was always in the form of man, as Phillipians 2 is pretty clear that Christ became a man at his incarnation. I misspoke when I said man was created in the image of Christ. It might be partially accurate since Christ was the pre-existent eternal Son of God, second person of the Trinity, and we were created in the Image of God, of which Christ is part of that image. But it was at the incarnation that Christ actually became a man without ceasing to be God of very God. But, is the Bible absolutely clear on what form Jesus actually had in heaven before the incarnation? Because it is the Genesis 18 account and other appearances of Christ that would seem to say that he had some bodily form before He became a man at the incarnation, and in that sense man may have been created in the image of Christ, but with a spirit, since God is also spirit.(John 4) Stan |
