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

Another way to approach this is to remember that time & actual/apparent rates of
moving through time are probably anything but constant. This is scientifically
manifested by relativity (i.e. rocket can go 99.999...% speed of light and get
to Andromeda before tomorrow --at least by rocket time-- but millions of years
still happen on earth during the same flight.)

And this even happens psychologically whenever you go into a deep sleep or spend
time in pleasant engagements. Time will "move" faster than when spent waiting
for something.

Having lost my dad some years ago, now, I have to wonder; what is the apparent
"rate" of time for someone physically deceased? We say that dad is in heaven
now, but I wouldn't insist this literally mean *our* "now". If I die, and after
laying in the grave for 200 years something happens and I am brought back,
wouldn't it seem immediate to me? The whole scriptural warning about God's time
not being our time (1000 yrs vs. a day) may have multiple levels of truth. But
merely speeding up the sequence still doesn't answer Murray's challenges of
judgment out-of-sequence. Regarding a literal working out of eschatological
timelines, the devil will always be in the details. (so to speak)

Also, if the new heaven & new earth are eternal (& if that isn't hyperbole in
the literal sense-- then this would preclude a mere removal to another solar
system. --Unless the present one is miraculously sustained for eternity.

--Merv

Quoting Dick Fischer <dickfischer@verizon.net>:

> 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.
>

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 17:38:36 2008