SOULS DIE

Eric,

Your logic is amazing. You have put yourself in a position where you have completely rewritten God's Word concerning death and judgment.

Fortunately, we have the Holy Spirit to speak to our hearts to show us this rambling is not true.

 

How have I completely rewritten God's words? I just gave you the texts as they were.

That's the problem here. Big judgments like that are made, and then taken as single handed "refutation" of the position in their own right, when not a single point has even been addressed! That's precisely what Kamoroso was saying before! (And by this; I do not mean so much the debate on what "nephesh" is which you did engage more, because that is actually more of a side issue. The real issue is the promience given the resurrection as our hope).
You can't accuse someone of "rewriting" once again, on the premise that "my interpretation is correct and his isn't", and lust leave it at that.
Appealing to the Holy Spirit does no good as well, because it's a reciprocal thing. The Spirit enlightens us to the proper meaning of the scripture, but then "the Spirit" also must be be tested by scripture as well. Hence, interpret less clear scriptures (in which the guidance of the Spirit is more needed) by the clear ones (which anyone can understand). There are plenty of 'voices' in our heads, including tradition and preconceived notions, (all backed by strong emotion which then totally clouds our vision) and anybody can say "the spirit tells me this is true". But it doesn't mean anything if the text doesn't support it, and the text clearly shows that the resurrection is our hope, without which we are "perished".
Early on in my Christian life, when I saw the error of Millerism on other points; I moved towards all the traditional doctrines, but on this one; I saw that they happened to have a much better scriptural case, though there may be some passages you can make a somewhat more legitimate counter argument from. Many of the interpretations are ambiguous, at best. (once again, "absent from the body", for example).
I have never gotten involved in this one before; because I know that many place this up there with the deity of Christ and all the stuff that supposedly distinguishes us from "the cults", and there are enough more important, yet less "radical" issues to dispute on. Still, some of the accusations being made here about disagreement on this issue are way over the top. You can still believe in some inbetween existence if you want, but you cannot be so hard on those who disagree with it when all of the scriptural evidence is not so clear in your favor as you might assume.

[ March 21, 2006, 01:18 PM: Message edited by: Eric B ]

 

.

I don’t think that 1 Thes. 4: 14 was explained sufficiently during the debate, where the Apostle Paul stated that “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep” To me it is obvious that this doesn’t refer to Jesus bringing back from heaven the souls of those who have died before. The words “bring with” were not meant to be taken in a real literal way, but, instead, are figurative words meaning that the Lord will raise the righteous dead in the same way and manner that He raised the Lord Jesus. That this is true can be seen by comparing 1 Thes. 4: 14 with 2 Cor. 4:14 (ESV)
“knowing that he who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and bring us with you into his presence.” Here our future resurrection will not be literally “with Jesus” in the sense that we will be in his actual presence for the same event. Although figurativelly we are resurrected “with Jesus”, that is, in the same way and manner, the two events are to be separated by a long period of time. So, when Paul states that “God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep, he simply means that they will be resurrected the same way Jesus was. The subject of the discourse was the resurrection of the dead, which was to bring comfort to those who had lost loved ones. If they were already “with Jesus” literally, then why wouldn’t that in itself be the means of comfort instead of the ressurection.
1 Thes. 4:13-14 (ESV)
“But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers, about those who are asleep, that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. [14] For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.” Also conserning 2 Cor. 5:8 (ESV)
“Yes, we are of good courage, and we would rather be away from the body and at home with the Lord” be aware that this verse doesn’t say that being “away from the body” is the same thing as being “at home with the Lord”. This is a very often missquoted verse. Paul states that we would rather be away from the body AND at home with the Lord. He didn’t say that the two events coinsided, only that one followed the other at the appropriate times. The situation of being “absent from the body” is an undesirable state described as being “naked”. 2 Cor. 5:1-4 (ESV)
“ For we know that if the tent, which is our earthly home, is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. [2] For in this tent we groan, longing to put on our heavenly dwelling, [3] if indeed by putting it on we may not be found naked. [4] For while we are still in this tent, we groan, being burdened--not that we would be unclothed, but that we would be further clothed, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life”.
It obviosly refers to the state of death. Being at home with the Lord refers to our resurrected presense with the Lord at his second coming. So in context, it states: 2 Cor. 5:10 (ESV)
For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

 

The spirits of those who died saved are already with Jesus. I used Philippians 1:21 and Luke 16:19-31 to show there is an intermediate state between death and resurrection. I never once denied the resurrection. The SDAs turned the message of Luke 16:19-31 on its head, saying it referred to the resurrected state and even said that since I don't believe in soul sleep, I will share the devil's fate.

Eric, you are right in saying that the spirit and soul are sometimes used interchangeably in the Bible. Prayer books also do that: May his soul and the souls of all the departed, through the mercy of God, rest in peace. 1979 Book of Common Prayer, page 465.

Also, you said that when the saved die, they travel through time and are resurrected already. Where is time travel mentioned in the Bible? Although there is an intermediate state between death and resurrection, we are resurrected because a complete person and body/soul/spirit together. This new body will last forever.

 

JFox1, I know that you were not denying the resurrection. My point was that Paul was trying to comfort those who had lost loved ones with the hope of the resurrection. They wouldn't be like those who "had no hope", that is those who wouldn't ever expect to see their loved ones again. He was saying that without the resurrection, they would be like those who "have no hope". If they had already been with Jesus, and were coming back with him, then they would have plenty of hope without Paul having to explain a resurrection. The subject of the discourse was the comfort the resurrection would bring to those who would otherwise never see their loved ones again.

 

Whats up with the Millerites?

 

Uh, that's a collective term for SDA's, their offshoots (Armstrongism, Abrahamic faith, etc.) and also the JW's, as Russel was at one point apart of Millerism. The doctrines of the state of the dead are the one thing that unite all those groups.

 

It doesn't call it "time travel", of course. That's a word we have invented for modern science fiction. This has nothing to do with time machines. But if the person "sleeps", then whatever time has passed between their death and resurrection will appear to be instantaneous to them.

Still, the traditional view is based largely on the premise that the "soul" or "spirit" is "the real us". That would make a bodily resurrection basically unnecessary. However, the scriptures make one very necessary, else those in Christ are "perished".

 

Please don't get me started on Armstrongism. I once had a co-worker who was into that. He had some of the weirdest theology I ever heard. He said that the Germans are going to take over the United States and Canada in the next five years. He said this in 1999 (Hmmmm. False prophecy?) He said that it's in the Bible. In the Bible, the Germans are called Assyrians.

He said that Herbert Armstrong was a prophet and and God has a prophet for each generation. He said that the current prophet is Gerald Flurry, the leader of the Philadelphia Church of God.

He said that the United States is the true Israel. He said that the last king of Israel had three daughters. One of them married the king of Ireland, and she took the throne of David with her to Ireland. It eventually ended up in England. The Queen sits on the same throne that King David used to sit on!

He said he doesn't believe in the Trinity because the Trinity limits God to three Persons and there should be more persons in the Godhead than that. He calls it "the God family." He said that on Judgment Day, he and certain other specially selected people will become members of the God family like the Father and the Son are. He said that when he becomes a member of the God family, no one will be able to look upon his face and live, but he will be able to manifest himself to other people. I guess that means that the next time somebody sees a burning bush, it might be my co-worker!

 

yes, the WCoG has strange beliefs.
The ICoG also has beliefs similar to those.

Where do they come up with these strange doctrines?

 

Non-Anglo Europe is supposed to be the Beast of prophecy. Many evangelical dispensationalists have believed something like that as well, so that explains the statement about Germany.
The great British and Americans "must" be the chosen ones of God. How else can their historic greatness be explained? (A lot of conservative preaching seems to inadvertantly agree with this, so I'm surprised that Anglo-Israelism wasn't more popular. It is the logical conclusion of a lot of political (and sometimes "Christian") conservative ideology).
Armstrong himself implied that he was not just the prophet of the age, but would even be the "third Elijah" preparing the way for the Second Coming. Of course, now that he's gone, splinter groups are all fighting as to who is Philadelphia, and who is Laodicea!

In other words, that will be the glorified resurrection body. That's what they believe it will look like, (because that's how Christ looks); and being perfected to them means becoming a member of this extended godhead.

Stuff like this is why I always stayed at arms length from the group even when I was looking into them. Now, this is not all of "Millerism", mind you. Just one particular offshoot of it.

 

Herbert Armstrong came up with most of that. He used to be a Seventh-Day Adventist but he left because he developed teachings of his own, such as Anglo-Israelism (that the ten lost tribes of Israel are actually Anglo-Saxons), deity for mankind, etc. Another of his teachings was a rather unique idea of how the Holy Spirit works. You might want to sit down for this one:

My co-worker once told me, "I'm not saying this to embarrass you, but the work of the Holy Spirit is like a man impregnating a woman." He then held up one hand and said, "This is the egg," and then he held up his other hand and said, "And this is the sperm. Separated, they're not much of anything. Together, they make a new person. In the same way, the Holy Spirit impregnates the mind of man and makes a new person."

I said, "I see what you're saying" and then changed the subject. I went back to my cubicle and laughed about ten or 15 minutes straight. One of the co-workers asked me what I was laughing about, and I told her what he just said. She laughed so hard tears ran down her face.

 

No, actually, they have a point with that one. The "word of God" is called a "seed", with our hearts as the ground "fertilized" by it, and we are begotten spiritually and born again by the Spirit. The problem with Armstrongism there was that they said you were only "begotten" but not yet born again, UNTIL the resurrection. But the begotten/fertilization analogy itself is clearly biblical.

Also; I don't think Armstrong was ever SDA, but the direct offshoot of the SDA was the Church of God 7th Day. They rejected EGW, and some of the other peculiar doctrines, but added the Passover to the sabbath as a requirement, rejected the "pagan holidays", and I believe they were the ones who started shunning birthdays. They held to a binitarian position, but not a "God Family".
In the 30's, the Church divided, and Armstrong became one of the "70 ministers" in what is known as the Salem group, which was even more insistent on being "the true Church" (with the "7/12/70 organization" copied from the NT), and it was there that he started his ministry. By the 40's; he was convinced that the group did not have all the truth (his peculiar doctrines), and then finally broke away with his own group (renamed WCG in the 60's), and regarded the earlier body as spiritually dead Sardis, with God raising the Philadelphia era through him.

 

I dunno. That analogy "This is the egg, this is the sperm" was one bizarre way to explain how the Holy Spirit works. He also said that the Holy Spirit isn't a Person, but a "force like water coming from God."

 

To compare the Holy Spirit to something that has to do with reproduction is right along with the teaching Armstrong taught that God is reproducing Himself in us. Totally unscriptural and IMO blasphemous.

 

Wasn't William Miller a baptist? I'm not sure he ever belived as SDA's do about the state of the dead. I no he never accepted the seventh day Sabbath. The Sabbath was introduced to Adventists by a Seventh Day Baptist, after which they became Seventh Day Adventists. The SDA church wouild probably not exist today were it not for these Baptists.

Bye for now. Y. b. in C. Keith

 

Still, the whole movement sprang from Miller's enthusaism about the Second Advent. Hence "Adventist". Several different denominations were involved, but aftert the "great Disappointment" of 1843-4, those who continued to follow became known as "Adventists", and from there, sabbatarianism was incorporated into the main segment of the movement.

 

Think about it. We are spiritually SONS of God; made and remade in His IMAGE; the "seed" and "begotten/born" analogies I mentioned.
To think of such an analogy blasphemous I think comes from our own squeamishness about the natural reproduction process. (We see it so misused, that is has become "dirty" in the back of our minds, and even if we have cleaned up alot of that, to associate a spiritual thing with it still alarms us).
Plus, Armstronginsm perhaps places a bit of an overemphasis on the egg&sperm, and that is what is making it come off as sounding weird. The Armstrongs were it seems a bit too obsessed with sexuality, even though they preached against sexual sin a lot (which itself could come from an obsession with it, evidenced by the moral compromise alleged in both son and later even the father).
Also; I should point out that they are off in the doctrine that God only gives us a "germ" or "seed" of the Spirit when we are converted to Christ. This "germ" increases as one grows in the Christian life, and is finished at the resurrection. This is why they keep emphasizing "seed/egg". This of course springs from his doctrine that we are only "begotten", not yet "born" at conversion. I would agree that there is no such thing in the scripture (a small measure of the Spirit given at the beginning). I would say the "begotten, not yet born" period when you only have a "seed" would be when you are being led to Christ, but not yet converted.

wopik is the Armstrongite here (CGI), so he should be able to explain this stuff as well.

 

No, thanks. I've had my fill of Armstrongism from my former co-worker. From talking with him, I learned more than I really cared to know.