One Must Hold to the Physical bodily resurrection to be saved?

[AresMan]

Thank you for asking a specific question based on the Bible and not just a generalization.

First of all, I don't think this is physical creation that is being spoken of, but of people. Yes, many times ktisis is used of the physical world but it is also often used of people, and of the spiritual realm:

Mark 16:15; 2 Cor. 5:17; Gal. 6:15

"For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature."

And Col. 1:23, which states in part:

"...the gospel ... which was preached [past tense!] to every creature which is under heaven ..."

I would argue that "every creature under heaven" is in reference to the fulfillment of the gospel going to both Jews and Gentiles. I would agree that there was a "coming of the Son of man" in judgment on Israel in 70 A.D., but I don't believe that this ushered in the new heavens and new earth. "Heaven and earth" (Mat 24:35) did not pass away when "this generation" (Mat 24:34) eventually passed away.

I have a hard time accepting that the "thousand years" in Revelation 20 were really 40 years in the first century. While I would agree that the "first resurrection" is regeneration, I believe that the "second resurrection" is the physical resurrection into glorified bodies like Christ attained in His resurrection mentioned elsewhere.

All of this is to say that the improvement and restoration is not at all concerning physical death on this Earth, but new life in Christ. And glorification when we, Christians, go to be with the Lord.

In other words, the Fall brought a curse of sin and physical death on all creation, and there will be no final remedy for what the Fall caused? The earth will continue to abide forever? There will never be an end to sin and death through the progeny of Adam?

Those who are in Christ "have passed from death unto life" already, John 5:24; 1 John 3:14; 5:24.

I agree, we have it now in earnest, but our realization is not fully realized until we are glorified. When we are "asleep in Christ" we still do not have the "blessed hope" until we are "not found naked" at the final resurrection when "the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." And if you don't have a final separation of sheep from goats in a final day of judgment, you never end the federal headship of Adam (Luk 29:34-38). The sons of this age marry, but those who are worthy to attain the age to come and the resurrection do not marry.

The groaning and pain that you cited above, AresMan, is the same that we find in Revelation, of the woman in childbirth. Specifically it is about the Church being born from among Jewish believers.

This Romans 8 passage the whole idea of pain in childbirth had earlier been found in places like Isa. 26:16-18. where Israel fails to give birth out of their own righteousness.

Birth, life, and death are all spiritually intended here in these passages.

The Jewish aspect of Romans 8:22ff is often overlooked, but it helps to remember that this passage leads up to the more obvious Jewish-themed Rom. 9-11.

Sorry, but I don't see your understanding playing out in Romans 8.
In v.11 our mortal bodies will be made alive (c.f. 1Co 15:20-22).
In v.15 we have received the Spirit of adoption. The adoption is fully realized when our bodies are redeemed (v.23).
In v.22 the whole creation is groaning in travail from the Fall waiting for an end.
In v.23 we also (as the adopted sons of God) among the creation groan, but we know what our hope is--the redemption of our body. This will be manifest in "the glorious liberty" of the "manifestation of the sons of God" (v.19) when we are freed from the corruption of sinful flesh (v.21) and will finally rule over a restored creation in the resurrection where there will be no more marriage, no more sin, and no more progeny of Adam.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In answer to the O.P., I don't think we humans get to say what doctrine in necessary for salvation; God has decided that.
However, the visible, physical return of the Lord Jesus Christ in glory at the end of the age is so clearly taught in Scripture (eg. Acts 1:11; 1 Corinthians 15:23ff; 1 Thessalonians 4L16; Revelation 1:7) that it is perverse in the extreme to deny it.
I think Aresman's post #61 is a good refutation.
One quick point:

And Col. 1:23, which states in part:

"...the gospel ... which was preached [past tense!] to every creature which is under heaven ..."

There is no way at all that the Gospel had gone out into every part, even of the Roman world by AD 61 or whenever Paul wrote Colossians, or even by AD 70.

So what does the verse mean? The word translated 'preached' is kerusso, to 'proclaim.'

Luke 2:1. 'And it came to pass that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.'

The decree was made and became law across the Roman Empire when Augustus issued it, but it could not be put into action in any particular Roman province until the message had gone there. Likewise, the Gospel was proclaimed by angels at our Lord's birth, by the Father Himself at Christ's baptism (Luke 3:21-22) and of course by the Lord Jesus Himself (Mark 1:15). The proclamation has been made to all once and for all, but it cannot be obeyed until people hear it (Romans 10:14-15). Hence the Great Commission.

 

[asterisktom]

One quick point:

There is no way at all that the Gospel had gone out into every part, even of the Roman world by AD 61 or whenever Paul wrote Colossians, or even by AD 70.

So what does the verse mean? The word translated 'preached' is kerusso, to 'proclaim.'

Luke 2:1. 'And it came to pass that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.'

The decree was made and became law across the Roman Empire when Augustus issued it, but it could not be put into action in any particular Roman province until the message had gone there. Likewise, the Gospel was proclaimed by angels at our Lord's birth, by the Father Himself at Christ's baptism (Luke 3:21-22) and of course by the Lord Jesus Himself (Mark 1:15). The proclamation has been made to all once and for all, but it cannot be obeyed until people hear it (Romans 10:14-15). Hence the Great Commission.

I only have time for a quick response now. (Hopefully I will answer your points, Aresman, tomorrow.) But I just have to answer this.

Such poor logic, MM!

A decree is not at all comparable to this proclamation. I am surprised you would even use this argument. A decree from a Caesar is easily issued from him. But the issuing of it does not automatically assume the propagation of it, nor the enforcing of it. So the fact that the decree of Augustus was made [past tense] proves nothing concerning Col. 1:23.

By contrast " the gospel ... was proclaimed to every creature under heaven" tells us of an act that implies a hearer (or reader).

In short:
A decree says nothing about recipients at the time of the decree.
A proclamation requires an audience and/or readership at the time of proclamation.

Do you see the difference?

 

[kyredneck]

kyredneck, do you still believe in a future bodily resurrection of the saints, just not at the "second coming"?

Yes. At the 'next coming', 1 Cor 15.

Good to see you posting again brother.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In short:
A decree says nothing about recipients at the time of the decree.
A proclamation requires an audience and/or readership at the time of proclamation.

From the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
E'dict n. Order proclaimed by authority.
Decree' n., & v.t. Ordinance or edict set forth by authority.

Not so different after all. In Esther 3:15, we read that 'the decree was proclaimed in Shushan the citadel.' But in the previous verses we learn that the decree 'was to be issued as law in every province, being published for all people.....' The decree was law when it was proclaimed, but it had to be issued/proclaimed all over the Empire so that it could be made known.

This is what was the case in Luke 2, and also in Luke 3:21f. The Father proclaimed His edict. To whom? To the whole world, and it is our job, as ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20) to make sure that it is made known to all the people of the world. And it is absolutely certain that nothing of the sort had happened by the time that Colossians was written.

 

[Yeshua1]

I only have time for a quick response now. (Hopefully I will answer your points, Aresman, tomorrow.) But I just have to answer this.

Such poor logic, MM!

A decree is not at all comparable to this proclamation. I am surprised you would even use this argument. A decree from a Caesar is easily issued from him. But the issuing of it does not automatically assume the propagation of it, nor the enforcing of it. So the fact that the decree of Augustus was made [past tense] proves nothing concerning Col. 1:23.

By contrast " the gospel ... was proclaimed to every creature under heaven" tells us of an act that implies a hearer (or reader).

In short:
A decree says nothing about recipients at the time of the decree.
A proclamation requires an audience and/or readership at the time of proclamation.

Do you see the difference?

When did the saints alive when jesus returned become glorified, and when did all nations accept Him as their King and Messiah?

 

[asterisktom]

From the Concise Oxford Dictionary.
E'dict n. Order proclaimed by authority.
Decree' n., & v.t. Ordinance or edict set forth by authority.

Not so different after all. In Esther 3:15, we read that 'the decree was proclaimed in Shushan the citadel.' But in the previous verses we learn that the decree 'was to be issued as law in every province, being published for all people.....' The decree was law when it was proclaimed, but it had to be issued/proclaimed all over the Empire so that it could be made known.

This is what was the case in Luke 2, and also in Luke 3:21f. The Father proclaimed His edict. To whom? To the whole world, and it is our job, as ambassadors for Christ (2 Corinthians 5:20) to make sure that it is made known to all the people of the world. And it is absolutely certain that nothing of the sort had happened by the time that Colossians was written.

You are skipping lightly around what Paul actually writes in Col. 1:23. Even some commentaries (like Poole's) understand it as having happened contemporaneously with Paul, not decades earlier.

Yes, we are clear on what an edict is. Just because the word "proclaim" is part of the definition does not make it synonymous. Using that logic I could just as well argue that "edict" equals "authority".

 

[asterisktom]

I would argue that "every creature under heaven" is in reference to the fulfillment of the gospel going to both Jews and Gentiles. I would agree that there was a "coming of the Son of man" in judgment on Israel in 70 A.D., but I don't believe that this ushered in the new heavens and new earth. "Heaven and earth" (Mat 24:35) did not pass away when "this generation" (Mat 24:34) eventually passed away.

"Heaven and earth is covenantal language. I believe it did indeed pass away with the coming of the new heaven and earth. But this will have to be an aside for now because it is leads too much away from the OP

I have a hard time accepting that the "thousand years" in Revelation 20 were really 40 years in the first century. While I would agree that the "first resurrection" is regeneration, I believe that the "second resurrection" is the physical resurrection into glorified bodies like Christ attained in His resurrection mentioned elsewhere.

Please consider that the only mention we have of any thousand years is in the highly figurative book of Revelation. The very first verse of the book gives us a hint of how we should approach the book.

To what degree will our resurrection body be like Christ's? Will matryrs have in their bodies the scars of their martyrdom? This is just one objection I would have.

In other words, the Fall brought a curse of sin and physical death on all creation, and there will be no final remedy for what the Fall caused? The earth will continue to abide forever? There will never be an end to sin and death through the progeny of Adam?

I agree, we have it now in earnest, but our realization is not fully realized until we are glorified. When we are "asleep in Christ" we still do not have the "blessed hope" until we are "not found naked" at the final resurrection when "the last enemy that shall be destroyed is death." And if you don't have a final separation of sheep from goats in a final day of judgment, you never end the federal headship of Adam (Luk 29:34-38). The sons of this age marry, but those who are worthy to attain the age to come and the resurrection do not marry

If you read I Cor. 15 and compare it with the Isa. passage you might see that physical death is not what is spoken of here, but spiritual death caused by sin.

Sorry, but I don't see your understanding playing out in Romans 8.
In v.11 our mortal bodies will be made alive (c.f. 1Co 15:20-22).
In v.15 we have received the Spirit of adoption. The adoption is fully realized when our bodies are redeemed (v.23).
In v.22 the whole creation is groaning in travail from the Fall waiting for an end.
In v.23 we also (as the adopted sons of God) among the creation groan, but we know what our hope is--the redemption of our body. This will be manifest in "the glorious liberty" of the "manifestation of the sons of God" (v.19) when we are freed from the corruption of sinful flesh (v.21) and will finally rule over a restored creation in the resurrection where there will be no more marriage, no more sin, and no more progeny of Adam.

I appreciate that you have provided many verses and cross-references. I am sorry that I was not able at this time to answer more thoroughly. Right now I am having to go through a lot of pointless hoops and obligations here in China. But I do want to get back to this.

When do you think the New Jerusalem comes down? Have you ever noticed the Rev. cross reference to the New Heavens and Earth/ New Jerusalem in Isa. 65? Death is still there.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

You are skipping lightly around what Paul actually writes in Col. 1:23.

Colossians 1:23. '......Not moved away from the hope of the Gospel which you heard, which was preached [or 'proclaimed'] to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister.' I think it may be you who is 'skipping lightly around' what Paul is saying. Taken simply, he is saying that the Gospel had already been proclaimed to the whole world. Now we may agree that Paul was ignorant of countries like Japan, Brazil or America, but to limit him even to the Roman Empire is ridiculous. Educated Romans were well aware of countries like Parthia, Dacia, the lands on the far side of the Rhine and even India, where Alexander's army had reached over 300 years before. Keruchthentos ('proclaimed') is in the Aorist (past) tense. If Colossians was written around 61-63AD then it is most unlikely that the Gospel had reached Spain Romans 15:22-28), Trans-Alpine Gaul or Britain, let alone those areas outside the Empire, let alone being preached to 'every creature.' But God knew all about Japan, Brazil and the USA, and all these countries were 'under heaven then as they are today It is you who must play fast and loose with the text in order to sustain your crazy unbiblical notions.

Even some commentaries (like Poole's) understand it as having happened contemporaneously with Paul, not decades earlier.

I don't have Poole's commentary, but I have looked at a couple of modern ones. Certainly they speak of the work of Paul and others around the Mediterranean, but they also focus on the fact that Paul is looking far further than that. Extracts on request.

Yes, we are clear on what an edict is. Just because the word "proclaim" is part of the definition does not make it synonymous. Using that logic I could just as well argue that "edict" equals "authority".

And edict or a decree has to be proclaimed. Therefore, when we speak of a 'proclamation,' we will be using a synecdoche, meaning the decree with is proclaimed.

 

[Yeshua1]

"Heaven and earth is covenantal language. I believe it did indeed pass away with the coming of the new heaven and earth. But this will have to be an aside for now because it is leads too much away from the OP



Please consider that the only mention we have of any thousand years is in the highly figurative book of Revelation. The very first verse of the book gives us a hint of how we should approach the book.

To what degree will our resurrection body be like Christ's? Will matryrs have in their bodies the scars of their martyrdom? This is just one objection I would have.



If you read I Cor. 15 and compare it with the Isa. passage you might see that physical death is not what is spoken of here, but spiritual death caused by sin.



I appreciate that you have provided many verses and cross-references. I am sorry that I was not able at this time to answer more thoroughly. Right now I am having to go through a lot of pointless hoops and obligations here in China. But I do want to get back to this.

When do you think the New Jerusalem comes down? Have you ever noticed the Rev. cross reference to the New Heavens and Earth/ New Jerusalem in Isa. 65? Death is still there.

The Second Coming MUST have had a physical resurrection of all the saints, and then the Messianic age, when Just Jesus was worshiped, so when did that happen?

 

[InTheLight]

You can't be Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection, says former Queen's chaplain
A former chaplain to the Queen has said that the quarter of Christians who say they do not believe in the Resurrection "cannot be Christians".

The Rev Dr Gavin Ashenden said in a letter to the Times that a survey which found that one in four self-proclaimed Christians do not believe in Jesus's Resurrection "made the mistake of confusing British culture with Christianity".

He said: "Those people who neither believe in the Resurrection nor go anywhere near a church cannot be 'Christians'.

"As with so many things, the key is in the definition of terms. Discovering the evidence for the Resurrection having taken place to be wholly compelling is one of the things that makes you a Christian; ergo, if you haven’t, you are not."

You can't be Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection, says former Queen's chaplain

 

[AresMan]

"Heaven and earth is covenantal language. I believe it did indeed pass away with the coming of the new heaven and earth. But this will have to be an aside for now because it is leads too much away from the OP

Is it "covenantal language" in 2 Peter 3 in reference to the destruction in the flood of Noah? I am also curious if you believe that the flood of Noah was a worldwide flood. There is a clear parallel in the passage between the judgment of the earth by water and the judgment by fire which ushers in the new heavens and new earth to replace "the heavens and the earth which are now."

Please consider that the only mention we have of any thousand years is in the highly figurative book of Revelation. The very first verse of the book gives us a hint of how we should approach the book.

I do rrecognizethat and I accept that the "thousand years" is not necessarily literal, but it ain't no 40 years either. It's funny that a hyper-preterist can stretch "the last hour" out to a period of several years, yet "thousand years" can be pressed down to 40 years. It seems ludicrous that the "this generation" and the "soon" and would be the same time period also described as a "thousand years" which seems to communicate "long" not "short" and "at the door" and so on.

To what degree will our resurrection body be like Christ's? Will matryrs have in their bodies the scars of their martyrdom? This is just one objection I would have.

I think you would be pressing "we shall be like Him" too literally on those of us who hold to the orthodox teaching of the future bodily resurrection. I believe it is safe to assume in the non-specifics of the Bible that the wounds of Christ are unique in this regard. Christ maintains His wounds as a testimony of the atonement, but "those who are Christ's at His coming" will not retain the decomposition or burns of cremation. Although our glorified bodies will be "changed" and glorified as was Christ'swe will not retain our old marks because we did not provide the atonement and present it to the Father in heaven, our flesh is not the veil, and we do not hold the office of priest as mediator between God and man as Christ does.

If you read I Cor. 15 and compare it with the Isa. passage you might see that physical death is not what is spoken of here, but spiritual death caused by sin.

1Co 15
12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

There is a logical and atecedent parallel between Christ's death and resurrection and our resurrection.

When do you think the New Jerusalem comes down? Have you ever noticed the Rev. cross reference to the New Heavens and Earth/ New Jerusalem in Isa. 65? Death is still there.

I believe it is entirely possible that, as Peter says that as "the prophets inquired and searched diligently when they prophesied" so the language of Isaiah 65-66 in describing the new heavens and new earth was an understatement of the full reality. Just as Isaiah 53 perfectly predicts the suffering, death, and resurrection of Christ, but with foggy language like "He shall prolong His days" and "He shall see His offspring" so the "death" and "sinner" negation references in Isaiah chapters 65-66 are understatements about the full reality that there really will be no sin and no death.

 

[Happy]

Kenosis

Thread closed ~ however you said;

Let me guess: the truth requires a gnostic revelation of mystery, right?

Why are you carrying on with your man-made psychobabble "gnostic" and other nonsense as if it has any relevance to scripture or people you address on this forum?

I was speaking of Gods Understanding, and you babble a remark that has nothing to do with that!

"Happy,"

1Jo 4
2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.

2Jo 1
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.

Based on Holy Scripture I command you to repent of your antichrist gnosticism and stop preaching another Jesus and another gospel.

What an ignorant thing to say!
I speak for myself!
You making up garbage, then claiming it is my view, then bashing YOUR WORDS, and adding your man-made psychobabble name calling is an old and boring Liberal tactic, which you have done repeatedly toward me and others.

3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God:

Man up and quote ME claiming such ignorant nonsense that YOU HAVE CLAIMED FOR ME!

Or hush up and knock off the false testifying against me.

And BTW ~ I have no desire to reverse my distance on the road through the narrow gate and play with you and your immature knowledge of scripture, and lack of Gods understanding.

 

[Happy]

When did the saints alive when jesus returned become glorified, and when did all nations accept Him as their King and Messiah?

Hi Yeshua1 ~

You may be asking to see who knows what, or because you do not know ~ either way;

Saints were called up from the grave and appeared to hundreds with Christ Jesus after Jesus arose from the dead. Their bodies were not "glorified", as that occurs in the clouds when Jesus returns and redeems His Church.

Today (but I do not have stats from which year exactly); however today, EVERY Nation has Christians. That does not mean the NATION is Christian, but rather nations also refers to the people OF a nation, and although some nations (countries) are strictly anti-Christian, people do worship Christ in secret from their government.

 

[Happy]

You can't be Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection, says former Queen's chaplain
A former chaplain to the Queen has said that the quarter of Christians who say they do not believe in the Resurrection "cannot be Christians".

The Rev Dr Gavin Ashenden said in a letter to the Times that a survey which found that one in four self-proclaimed Christians do not believe in Jesus's Resurrection "made the mistake of confusing British culture with Christianity".

He said: "Those people who neither believe in the Resurrection nor go anywhere near a church cannot be 'Christians'.

"As with so many things, the key is in the definition of terms. Discovering the evidence for the Resurrection having taken place to be wholly compelling is one of the things that makes you a Christian; ergo, if you haven’t, you are not."

You can't be Christian if you don't believe in the resurrection, says former Queen's chaplain

Pfft! Nonsense. A person can be a Christian ~ and not be saved or born again.

Look at the disciples ~ They were called Christian's because they were "followers" of Christ and Christ's Gospel.

Every person hearing, reading, listening to sermons, being enlightened to the truth are "learning About" Christ and are "following" the Gospel of Christ Jesus, and certainly can call themselves a Christian, as would anyone who observed them exiting a Christian Church meeting call them a Christian.

( They are talked about repeatedly in Scripture, as the ones WHO must be cautious because of their weakness of temptations to "falling away", because they have not yet submitted in faithfulness to the Lord and been forgiven, had their soul restored or their spirit quickened).

 

[reformed_baptist]

So those holding to just a spirtual on eneed to change thir mind, correct?

The clue is in the word, 'resurrection' - unless one is working on the premise that Jesus' spirit died, then one must conclude a physical resurrection - physical death - physical resurrection!

 

[Happy]

The Bible states that we must hol to that!

The "saving" pertains to the whole of a man, BEFORE physical death occurs, BECAUSE the man has submitted in faithfulness to God.

Forgiveness given - body crucified and sanctified - soul restored - spirit quickened - new heart given -
Gods Spirit indwells.

Resurrection of ALL bodies shall occur - Saved and Unsaved.

The Saved shall receive their NEW bodies - (and their soul AND spirit) imparted into their new bodies.

The Unsaved shall receive their souls (waiting in hell) imparted BACK into their bodies (raised from the grave). Their bodies shall not be changed, but with their living soul imparted, their body resumes living.

THEN shall ALL stand before Christ Jesus, SEE Him, be "in belief, confess belief, praise, and bow to Him".

THEN shall Judgement commence. The book of Life shall be opened. Those WHO were in the book of Life, shall have had their NAMES blotted out, BECAUSE they physically died ~ unsaved.

Their "sentence", is: Life from their body shall depart (ie their living soul). Life from their soul shall depart. God IS Life, and all Life (of the unsaved) SHALL return to Him. And the unsaved mans BODY and SOUL, (both void of Life) shall be cast into the pit of fire, forever separated from the Lord and saved mankind.

 

[Happy]

One cannot be ignorant of any part of the gospel and be saved.

Sure he can.

 

[th1bill]

The Bible states that we must hol to that!

Not do what?

 

[AresMan]

Why are you carrying on with your man-made psychobabble "gnostic" and other nonsense as if it has any relevance to scripture or people you address on this forum?

Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.

You deny that Jesus was biologically a descendant of Abraham, David, and Mary. Mary was not an incubator for an alien body. She conceived AND bore a son.
If you deny that Jesus was a biological descendant of Abraham, David, and Mary through the virgin conception, you are a flaming hetetic. Period. Please feel free to correct my assessments if I am wrong.

I was speaking of Gods Understanding, and you babble a remark that has nothing to do with that!

I am not the only one who has called you out for teaching gnosticism, and you have yet to deny that charge and explain why you are not, in fact, a gnostic.