RE: Where are the dear departed? (was Re: [asa] Sin, animals, and salvation)

Let me take a stab at the question. The thief on the cross went to be
with Jesus straight away that night in spirit (Luke 23:43). That infers
that when the body dies the spirit of the just resides with Christ.
When the rich man died his soul was in hell (Luke 16:22-23). So the
punishment/reward seems to be immediate, however, there will be a new
heaven and a new earth (Rev. 21:1). Christ received a glorified body
and if we are to receive new physical bodies (and heaven knows we could
use one) it possibly will be on another planet in a different solar
system before or when our sun dies and envelopes the earth in a "lake of
fire."

Dick Fischer, GPA president
Genesis Proclaimed Association
"Finding Harmony in Bible, Science and History"
www.genesisproclaimed.org
 

-----Original Message-----
From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu [mailto:asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu] On
Behalf Of Murray Hogg
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 3:40 PM
To: ASA
Subject: Re: Where are the dear departed? (was Re: [asa] Sin, animals,
and salvation)

Hi Merv,

You wrote:
> To be honest, I've never worked out details on any of this! I'm weak
on
> eschatology primarily because I don't see attempted "knowledge" of
this at the
> heart of faithful Christian life. It is my reaction against those who
try to
> write off notions of heaven and hell (or dualism) entirely as nothing
more than
> Greek mythology. And I would guess that we agree in part on some of
this. But
> you have challenged me to go a level further in recognizing more
accommodation
> than I previously had considered. I agree that there is plenty of
room for
> figurative points in Jesus' parables (and the most die-hard
"fundamentalists" I
> personally know would think it absurd to insist on literal bosoms,
etc...) BUT,
> I had at least always taken this as strong evidence of the judgment of
hell,
> whether or immediate or not or in what sequence --I have no idea, and
can't
> begin to answer your challenge. Now you have challenged me to see
beyond those
> details to consider whether the point of the story had anything to do
with the
> nature of hell. I'll be thinking about this. Thanks for your
thoughtful replies.

I appreciate the tone of the response, Merv. I don't so much expect you
to change your view - you certainly don't need to respond to my
challenge, but thanks for understanding my reservations in respects of
the "accepted" reading of the texts you cited. I guess I'm just strong
on people making a theological and/or exegetical application of the
teaching about removing the log in one's own eye before pointing out the
splinter in somebody else's. Not that I follow that principle
consistently myself, of course, that would be FAR too difficult!

I agree, incidentally - and I note that Bernie made the same point -
that perhaps the reason this eschatological material is not VERY clear
is because there ARE more important things. Very sad when people become
so fixated on eschatological speculation that they seem to loose focus
on living the Christian life in the present - or, at least, it seems to
me to be an imbalance. Again, please don't feel you need to "answer" my
"challenge" if you feel you have better things to spend your time on. I
am, as I said, only pointing out why I feel the "received"
interpretation doesn't fly.

I even think I can get around Bernie's appeal to Phil 1 - I acknowledge
that I may not be I'm doing so legitimately, but I won't loose sleep
over it as I'm sure I have far more important issues to deal with! :)

>
> I'll just conclude my thoughts here: I still think that the point of
plucking
> out one's eye IS to impress on us just how seriously we would take all
this if
> we could only see the judgment that is to come --and that it will be
terrible
> for the unrighteous. If I understood you correctly, you might agree
on that, I
> guess.

Yes, I do agree. In fact, I think the idea that one might miss out on
the blessedness of eternity with God is itself a sufficiently horrendous
thought that one doesn't need to spice it up (no pun intended!) with
talk of fire and brimstone. If one loved God enough to dread the idea of
ever being separated from him, then one would understand the reason why
Jesus gives such dire warnings to motivate us to flee the coming
judgment. It's not because God is a terrible wrathful vengeful sadist -
but precisely the opposite - that makes the idea of judgment and ensuing
separation so terrible. It's not what the unrighteous are condemned to
but what they're separated from which ought to be the defining
consideration. Or, at least, that's my view of it.

Blessings,
Murray Hogg
Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Fri Nov 21 11:56:51 2008