Let me begin by positing that there are three possibilities that humans
face following physical death; (1) being in the Lord's presence; (2) soul
sleep until the resurrection; (3) a state which is neither. Romans 8:29f
with Ephesians 1:4f has us already glorified at the time of creation. So
there should be no problem of immediately being in God's presence, even
if the spiritual bodies are not yet granted. It does appear that the
saints have to wait for the resurrection. This is not clear for the
ungodly, so it may be that (2) is what applies to them, though taking the
Rich Man and Lazarus literally produces a problem. I recognize that there
are those who insist on (2) for the saints. Finally, anyone who does not
like these alternatives can speculate about (3) to their heart's content.
One possibility is that the state of the saints is with God, but that
there is a sentient state separate from the agony of divine holiness for
the ungodly as they await resurrection and judgment. I see these as
logical possibilities which may be debated ad infinitum or ad nauseam,
unless someone presents a further option which does not fit in the
three..
Dave (ASA)
On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 10:54:19 +1100 Murray Hogg <muzhogg@netspace.net.au>
writes:
> Hi Dick,
>
> It's probably worth mentioning here that the idea of the spirits of
> the just residing with Christ in an interim "death - resurrection"
> period has been floated at various points in church history. It's
> essentially the Roman Catholic doctrine of "Limbo"
> <http://tinyurl.com/22ksg8>. It's pretty common to encounter
> discussions of "Limbo of Infants" (the place where the souls of
> those who died in infancy reside) but Limbo is properly a broader
> idea - it includes the notion of "Abraham's Bosom" where the adult
> righteous reside. So in some respects we're covering some pretty
> well trodden ground.
>
> In THAT particular discussion a commonly discussed passage (not yet
> raised here) is 1 Peter 3:19 which refers to Jesus going to
> "proclaim" (most translations have "preach" but the Gk word here is
> not the one normally so translated) to the spirits in prison. Some
> (whom I consider too optimistic!) will appeal to Eph 4:7-10 and Rom
> 10:7 in support.
>
> I make this point because I think it appropriate to point out that
> the idea of an intermediate state is an ongoing theological
> difficulty and we need not assume that it is easy to resolve. But
> one thing I suspect is that it's only with the rise of relativity
> theory, and the awareness that time is NOT as "simple" as we might
> like to think, that we might be placed to resolve some of the
> difficulties.
>
> My basic contention is that to INSIST that passages which talk of
> "descent" or "departure" must relate to the time-frame of our
> experience seem to me tied to a Newtonian view of the universe.
> Indeed, I'd suggest that as space and time are inter-related in a
> single coordinate system, then to INSIST that we work with a single
> temporal coordinate system seems to DEMAND that we work with a
> single spacial coordinate system - making heaven and hell physical
> places standing in spacial relationship with our reality.
>
> In other words, I think there's a hidden dependence upon the
> assumption of the old "three decker universe" lurking here. We have
> comfortably abandoned (I think) the idea of a literal "descent" into
> Hades - i.e. abandoned the use of "our" spacial coordinate system.
> But we miss that time is as much a created entity as space and we
> insist on connecting what Jesus did during his "descent" with our
> temporal coordinate system. But on our understanding of space-time I
> think this is perhaps improper?
>
> Now let me be clear that I'm not insisting that it's WRONG to try to
> chronologically "map" Jesus post-mortem / pre-resurrection
> activities onto OUR temporal frame. But I am questioning whether we
> necessarily should. In particular, I'm questioning why we have been
> able to accept the idea that Jesus' "descent" refers to a
> "trans-location" to another spacial dimension BUT we have difficulty
> with the idea that it also might involve a "trans-location" to a
> different temporal location? Time is just such a weirder and less
> intuitive concept than space, I guess, and escaping a Newtonian
> concept of time as something we are "in" and which "flows" regularly
> in all parts of the universe (and beyond!) is so very hard to do.
>
> But if one IS going to speak of heaven and hell as different
> "dimensions" to our own - then one ought to keep Einstein's
> discussions of simultaneity in mind. We can't even speak of temporal
> simultaneity in our OWN spacial coordinate system - to speak of
> temporal simultaneity of another space-time coordinate system with
> our own should, I think, really strike us as problematic.
>
> Returning to my primary objection - which I certainly maintain in
> the strongest possible terms - I simply can't see the merit in the
> idea that the souls awaiting resurrection have already been judged.
> And I've seen nothing which suggests that "we die and go to heaven"
> theories can escape this - indeed, I think some are actually
> advocating the idea. But, frankly, I consider that there is so much
> strong NT support for the idea of a post-resurrection judgment that
> I simply can't see how any schemata requiring judgment at the time
> of death - not even a "provisional" judgment - can be sustained.
>
> On Luke 16:22-23 I'll only reiterate my previous remarks: if you're
> going to appeal to this passage in support of the idea that the
> unrighteous go straight to hell then (1) you also need to affirm a
> LITERAL Abraham's Bosom where ALL the blessed recline and, as I said
> in my earlier post, I've NEVER meet anybody who wants to do so; and
> more importantly (2) you have to wrench the passage out of its
> context to make it teach something that has NOTHING to do with Jesus
> point. In short, I find appeals to this particular passage to be
> enormously problematic and, if you'll forgive me for saying so, I
> think such appeals are selective and misinformed.
>
> On the thief on the cross - please see my previous remarks to Bernie
> on Paul's departure "to be with Christ" (it's the same "why accept
> the temporal framework unless your affirming the same spacial
> framework" query as above).
>
> The idea of going to a different planet is novel (I think) - but
> what happens when THAT planet's sun dies? And etc. I'm reasonably
> certain that it doesn't work as a long-term solution!
>
> Finally, I just HAVE to draw attention to one critically important
> point in this entire discussion;
>
> When people ask the question about who does / doesn't go to heaven
> (pets included) then they are not GENERALLY asking "where do we go
> BEFORE we are raised from the dead and judged". Rather they are
> working with a conceptual framework ENTIRELY foreign to the Biblical
> understanding - they are working with the idea that heaven and hell
> are "spiritual" places where we go immediately at the point of death
> and never leave. This is to advocate (1) a cosmology which is,
> frankly, naive in the extreme; and (2) a fundamentally non-Christian
> notion of creation and redemption. It is this two-fold error which
> is my primary objection NOT the idea of an intermediate state
> (although for reasons mentioned I find even this to be a very thorny
> subject).
>
> In that context, discussions of the intermediate state are somewhat
> relevant in that they really force one to think through how one
> understands the relation between space-time and resurrection BUT it
> must be kept in mind that the FINAL and not the INTERMEDIATE state
> is the point at issue.
>
> So whilst I'm happy to discuss the intermediate state I would urge
> folk to keep in mind that my ultimate concern is how we understand
> the final state of the un/righteous and that my claim is that
> GENERALLY people's talk about "going to heaven" actually involves a
> rejection of what the NT states very clearly: there will be a
> physical resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous, this will be
> followed by a judgment, and our eternal state - in a renewed
> creation - will involve a physical existence albeit of a sort vastly
> different from that we experience now.
>
> With that in mind I'll simply renew my objection: when most people
> speak of "dying and going to heaven" it should be acknowledged that
> this has NOTHING to do with the Biblical picture of the FINAL state
> - it's certainly NOT a claim about an INTERMEDIATE state of the sort
> I believe is being considered here.
>
> Blessings,
> Murray Hogg
> Pastor, East Camberwell Baptist Church, Victoria, Australia
> Post-Grad Student (MTh), Australian College of Theology
>
> Dick Fischer wrote:
> > 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
>
>
> To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
>
>
____________________________________________________________
Find the apartment of your dreams by clicking here now!
http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/PnY6rw15IDm4MNRx6O0ctYBaTb1nGgRbDDDiUHrmC65SC13wlxmDr/
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 22:56:43 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Fri Nov 21 2008 - 22:56:43 EST