Consulting or calling up the dead

[steve]

RND,

You asked:

What is the point or necessity for those that float away coming back to earth for the resurrection and getting a "new body?" Is there any scripture, one, that could shed some light on this?

What is the purpose for both Peter and Paul to suggest that, "the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom?" Wouldn't it just be easier to leave those already in heaven there for judgment? What purpose is served in "bringing them back?"

These are actually very good questions, which many Christians ask and need to have answered. The reason there must be a resurrection is that it is a part of God's program to restore all things to their unfallen condition. In the unfallen world, people did not live in heaven, but in a paradise called earth. They were not spirits (which, as Jesus said, "have not flesh and bones"), but they were in physical bodies possessing the potential of immortality. This is what was ruined and lost by sin.

There can be no full restoration of God's original plan without the restoration of these pristine conditions (Acts 3:21/ Rev.21:1-5). The meek do not inherit heaven, but the earth (Psalm 37:11/ Prov.2:21-22/Matt.5:5; 13:40-43). This is what God promised to Abraham and his Seed Christ (Rom.4:13/ Psalm 2:7-8/ Isa.42:4/ Rev.11:15). It is the earth that will be filled with the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea (Numbers 14:21/ Isaiah 11:9/ Hab.2:14).

The question of the interim state has no impact upon this restoration, which only comes at the end. In other words, whether our "spirits" are in heaven after death, or if they are asleep and unconscious, this has nothing to do with God's need to raise the dead at the time when He restores all things. As Paidion said, we are not groaning in anticipation of the disembodied state, but we are longing for the resurrection of the dead. This, of course, says nothing about whether there is or is not a disembodied state before that resurrection. After all, Paul did say that, when Jesus leaves heaven and returns to raise the dead, He will bring with Him those who have died in Christ (1 Thess.4:14).

You asked:

Would you mind providing the quote where I ever said EGW was a "prophetess?" I see her writings as educational and nothing more. Are you suggesting that the Calvinist that post here must somehow be in agreement with the Calvin that burned Michael Servetus at the stake who was burned alive for denying that the Son of God was eternal?

I never said that you refer to EGW as a prophetess. I said that those who do so (since she claimed to be one, one must take her as a true prophet, or else as a false one) are not of the same mind as most of those who are at this forum. I said that no one at this forum (to my knowledge) attributes that kind of authority to me. As for Calvin, if he had claimed to be a prophet, we would similarly be obliged to judge that he was either a true prophet or else a false prophet. If the former, we should accept his words (not necessarily his every action). If he was a false prophet, then he should be denounced. As it is, he never claimed to be a prophet, as EGW did, so he is not a false prophet—just a false teacher.

You asked:

Steve, I'm guessing you believe Christ's second advent is soon?

I do not know how I could know such a thing. The edition of the Bible that I use left out all references to the date of the second coming. Of course, I can hope, as have all Christians, that His coming may be soon, but it would be foolish for me to assert that this is so. This would be going far beyond the teaching of scripture.

You cited:

cult
   /kʌlt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [kuhlt] Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a particular system of religious worship, esp. with reference to its rites and ceremonies.
2. an instance of great veneration of a person, ideal, or thing, esp. as manifested by a body of admirers: the physical fitness cult.

I'm assuming you believe Jesus Christ was a person, espoused ideals and has a "manifested by a body of admirers."

I am afraid you missed my point about definitions. Please save me the trouble of answering this again by reading the comment that you are responding to.

You asked:

What's the cut-off? 10 years? 20? 30? I've discussed things regarding the Bible with people that have studied 30 years that have never pondered some of the things I have learned.

The cut-off is not a chronological age, but an attitude. The fact that you have found Christians who have read the BIble for 30 years, who have never pondered the things you have is a true indictment on the level of biblical and theological illiteracy in our churches. There may be something you have not have pondered, and that is that not everyone who disagrees with your conclusions has necessarily pondered them any less than you have.

You wrote:

Have you found wisdom and her children yet Steve?

and

Well, they say it does take "two to tango" Steve. Placing blame on one or two is unnecessary and uncalled for.

These are examples of one kind of thing I find difficult in reading your posts. It seems that your comments aim at cogency by their deliberate brevity, but do so at the expense of clarity. It would often be more profitable to be less brief so that it will become clearer to readers what your point is. As it stands, I can't ascertain your meaning.

[RND]

These are actually very good questions, which many Christians ask and need to have answered. The reason there must be a resurrection is that it is a part of God's program to restore all things to their unfallen condition. In the unfallen world, people did not live in heaven, but in a paradise called earth. They were not spirits (which, as Jesus said, "have not flesh and bones"), but they were in physical bodies possessing the potential of immortality. This is what was ruined and lost by sin.

There can be no full restoration of God's original plan without the restoration of these pristine conditions (Acts 3:21/ Rev.21:1-5). The meek do not inherit heaven, but the earth (Psalm 37:11/ Prov.2:21-22/Matt.5:5; 13:40-43). This is what God promised to Abraham and his Seed Christ (Rom.4:13/ Psalm 2:7-8/ Isa.42:4/ Rev.11:15). It is the earth that will be filled with the glory of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea (Numbers 14:21/ Isaiah 11:9/ Hab.2:14).

The question of the interim state has no impact upon this restoration, which only comes at the end. In other words, whether our "spirits" are in heaven after death, or if they are asleep and unconscious, this has nothing to do with God's need to raise the dead at the time when He restores all things. As Paidion said, we are not groaning in anticipation of the disembodied state, but we are longing for the resurrection of the dead. This, of course, says nothing about whether there is or is not a disembodied state before that resurrection. After all, Paul did say that, when Jesus leaves heaven and returns to raise the dead, He will bring with Him those who have died in Christ (1 Thess.4:14).

Thanks for your answer Steve but I honestly don't see an answer to any of my questions. Jesus, when He visited the disciples in His "glorified" body, the same exact body I expect to have soon, was hungry and ate fish and yet could walk though walls and disappear in a flash. He insisted He wasn't a spirit.

Is there anything in scripture that states those that have gone to heaven in spirit return to earth for this "glorified" body?

I never said that you refer to EGW as a prophetess. I said that those who do so (since she claimed to be one, one must take her as a true prophet, or else as a false one) are not of the same mind as most of those who are at this forum.

I think I saw an insinuation. BTW Steve, EGW never claimed to be a prophet.

I said that no one at this forum (to my knowledge) attributes that kind of authority to me. As for Calvin, if he had claimed to be a prophet, we would similarly be obliged to judge that he was either a true prophet or else a false prophet. If the former, we should accept his words (not necessarily his every action). If he was a false prophet, then he should be denounced. As it is, he never claimed to be a prophet, as EGW did, so he is not a false prophet—just a false teacher.

Steve, I didn't ask that, I asked should a Calvinist, in their belief's today , be judged on the actions of Calvin. Some in the Adventist church have certainly believed EGW was equal with scripture and take her work as the final arbitrator in their view of scripture. But she never claimed to be a "prophet."

“I said that I did not claim to be a prophetess. I have not stood before the people claiming this title, though many called me thus. I have been instructed to say, ‘I am God's messenger, sent to bear a message of reproof to the erring and of encouragement to the meek and lowly.’”—The Review and Herald, Jan. 26, 1905, pp. 5, 6.

“Why have I not claimed to be a prophet?—Because in these days many who boldly claim that they are prophets are a reproach to the cause of Christ; and because my work includes much more than the word ‘prophet’ signifies.“—The Review and Herald, July 26, 1906, p. 8.

I do not know how I could know such a thing. The edition of the Bible that I use left out all references to the date of the second coming. Of course, I can hope, as have all Christians, that His coming may be soon, but it would be foolish for me to assert that this is so. This would be going far beyond the teaching of scripture.

Steve, in the realm of eternity is 300 years any different than 3,000? Do you think that maybe Usher's chronology and the evidence of the OT feasts and festivals that pointed to Christ's first Advent might be helpful in understanding the timing of the second? Jesus even admonished those that could tell the weather by looking at the sky but could discern the "signs of the times" by reading scripture.

Mat 16:2 He answered and said unto them, When it is evening, ye say, [It will be] fair weather: for the sky is red. 3 And in the morning, [It will be] foul weather to day: for the sky is red and lowring. O [ye] hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky; but can ye not [discern] the signs of the times?

I am afraid you missed my point about definitions. Please save me the trouble of answering this again by reading the comment that you are responding to.

OK.

The cut-off is not a chronological age, but an attitude. The fact that you have found Christians who have read the BIble for 30 years, who have never pondered the things you have is a true indictment on the level of biblical and theological illiteracy in our churches. There may be something you have not have pondered, and that is that not everyone who disagrees with your conclusions has necessarily pondered them any less than you have.

Oh, no doubt. Likewise I have learned a tremendous amount of lots of non-Adventist preachers and teachers.

Have you found wisdom and her children yet Steve?

Steve, Jesus made a comment to the Pharisees about "wisdom is justified of her children."

Mat 11:19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.

She and her children can be found in Proverbs 8 and 9.

These are examples of one kind of thing I find difficult in reading your posts. It seems that your comments aim at cogency by their deliberate brevity, but do so at the expense of clarity. It would often be more profitable to be less brief so that it will become clearer to readers what your point is. As it stands, I can't ascertain your meaning.

I'll try to keep that in mind.

[steve7150]

Is there anything in scripture that states those that have gone to heaven in spirit return to earth for this "glorified" body?





"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again , even so God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus." 1st Thes 4.14

Who will Jesus bring with him when he comes again? Do these believers have bodies yet? Clearly not since they receive their bodies in verse 16.

[RND]

"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again , even so God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus." 1st Thes 4.14

Who will Jesus bring with him when he comes again?

Clarity is a wonderful thing Steve! If we simply take this verse on face value alone, it seems to indicate that indeed Jesus is driving a bus full of those that died and floated off to heaven! But taken into complete context with what Paul was saying it seems that he is repeating 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.

NIV - We believe that Jesus died and rose again and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.

ESV - For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep.

Now, complete context:

1Th 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. 14 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him. 15 For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive [and] remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.

Paul. Yes david. When do those that have died and fallen asleep come back?

1Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: 17 Then we which are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord. 18 Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

Do these believers have bodies yet?

They are dead in the grave Steve.

Clearly not since they receive their bodies in verse 16.

When they "rise" from the grave, which is where they have been all along according to Paul.

[steve]

RND,

It was your failure to understand my answer to your two questions (the beginning of my last post, above) that made it impossible for you to understand Steve7150's point as well. I don't think you are really incapable of understanding plain arguments for positions other than your own, if only you would attempt to do so. I attempt very diligently to understand the arguments of people who disagree with me, which is why I understand all of your biblical assertions, and how you intend to make your points from them. In fact, I have understood all of your arguments since I first heard them, sometime in the seventies (I am assuming this is before you were born?). It is because I understand your reasoning (though I seldom understand your curt remarks, which have little to do with your argumentation) that I remain unpersuaded by your case.

If I did not already know and understand your arguments, I would have to remain more tentative in my own views until I felt that I had understood your case thoroughly. This would be a good approach for you to take as well. You have admitted and/or demonstrated that the arguments for the position you reject are actually beyond your power to comprehend—or, as I suspect, are not among the things you desire to understand. Hasty, poorly-thought-out responses seem to be your specialty. Even as a novice, you could gain more respect among those with whom you disagree (as Paidion has managed to do) if you made a serious effort to understand those with whom you are disagreeing—even if it meant you not being able to fire back such rapid (and ultimately embarrassing) responses so quickly—or even if it meant admitting your mistakes occasionally, when they have been pointed out.

I am sorry to have to be so blunt with you (I don't object to similar bluntness being used in correcting me). I have been sitting back, reading these threads, for a long time without speaking up. I have spoken now because I am finding it difficult to leave these things unsaid.

I am surprised that you object to my saying that Ellen G. White called herself a prophet, when your own citation of her actual words has her saying (as Jesus said about John the Baptist) that she was even more than a prophet. She was more important and more significant than a mere prophet. She objected to being called by that label, because it was apparently not adequate to encompass all that she thought herself to be.

Your analogy to Calvinists was not very apt. You are suggesting that, if I say many people look to EGW as a prophet, then I ought to hold all modern Calvinists (whether they support Calvin himself or not) as accessories to the murder of Michael Servetus. The cases are as parallel as these two lines: )(

If you re-read what I have written to you, and come back saying that you now understand it, then I will be glad to continue dialogue with you. If not, then there does not seem to be any reason to continue making new points, which will not likely be understood any better. Whether the defect lies on your side or on mine, we do not currently seem capable of communicating with each other.

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:
"For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again , even so God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in Jesus." 1st Thes 4.14

Who will Jesus bring with him when he comes again?


Clarity is a wonderful thing Steve! If we simply take this verse on face value alone, it seems to indicate that indeed Jesus is driving a bus full of those that died and floated off to heaven! But taken into complete context with what Paul was saying it seems that he is repeating 1 Corinthians 15:50-53.






RND, We can agree clarity is wonderful , yet you completely ignored the straightforward statement of Paul that Christ returns bringing WITH HIM those who had fallen asleep, to unite with their physical bodies to receive immortality at the resurrection.

Generally speaking Paul's statements on this topic are quite straightforward and clear , for as he said we have an "inner man" and he said we have "spirit,soul and body" and he believed
to die is gain,
depart and be with the Lord
absent from the body and be with the Lord
Christ will return with those who have fallen asleep

These statements are from Paul, not the Babylonians not the Egyptians but from the Apostle Paul. In addition Christ said

the angels carried off Lazarus to Abraham's bosum (his inner man, not a corpse)
Truly i say to you, TODAY you will be with me in paradise (Christ patented the expression "truly i say to you").

All these statements are simple and straightforward and mean what they say and say what they mean therefore i think perhaps the New Covenant changed this situation from the Old Covenant.

Now if soul-sleep is your belief that's fine with me but you must add things to these clear statements to reconcile them to your belief.

[Michelle]

I have a question that I've actually had for two days, but was kind of shy about asking. I can't get it off my mind, so I'm sucking it up and asking...

On Sunday I was studying the parable of the sheep and goats in Matthew 25:13-46. Those on his right hand seem pretty surprised when the King tells them to come inherit the kingdom. Why the wonder? Wouldn't they have been tipped off if they had already spent time in heaven with him? That was my question on Sunday evening. This morning, however, I got to thinking that perhaps their astonishment was not that they had the reward, but their surprise was for the reasons given for the reward. Could that be it?

[steve]

Steve7150,

You wrote:

All these statements are simple and straightforward and mean what they say and say what they mean...

Even though I tend to agree with your position, I am not sure that we can very often make a statement like this on a topic that is this controversial among Christians. I believe that you are understanding those verses correctly, but people of the soul-sleep camp have scriptures that seem to teach their position as well. It is important to take each "proof text" (for any view) on a case-by-case basis, and consider whether, in light of other passages, it might plausibly be seen as people of other positions see it or not. Usually, when a topic has remained debatable among Christians as long as this one has, it is too simplistic to say that the scriptural evidence is straightforward. Settling upon a responsible conclusion, in such cases, usually requires the balancing of multiple scriptural considerations that exist in tension with each other. It would be fairly easy to get this matter wrong. While I agree with your position, I would not wish to minimize the ambiguity of the relevant biblical data.


Michelle,

You raise a good point that I had never thought much about.

I wonder how much of the sheep and goats parable is really supposed to correspond with any literal reality. I mean, it is a parable after all. There is a literal reality, of course, that is being represented—for example, that there will be a judgment, and that people will be judged by their works, and that these works are their works of charity and compassion, and that their destinies are markedly distinct...etc. The drama, however, may be entirely made-up to illustrate these points. After all, we have an entirely different drama depicting the same judgment in the parables of the minas and of the talents, where the characters do not have exactly the same lines.

It is also possible that the "sheep" in the parable may be distinguished from "my brethren"—the latter being Christians, and the former being those who, while never becoming Christians, were loving and sympathetic to the Christian cause. If it were taken this way, then the sheep might not have been in heaven previously at all (I am personally open to the doctrine of "soul-sleep" for unbelievers, who have not obtained eternal life through faith in Christ). These non-Christians might very well be surprised to learn that, while they have not the same inheritance as the saints, they do have a welcome into the kingdom, and do not share the fate of the heartless and the cruel.

I am only speculating here.

[RND]

RND,

It was your failure to understand my answer to your two questions (the beginning of my last post, above) that made it impossible for you to understand Steve7150's point as well. I don't think you are really incapable of understanding plain arguments for positions other than your own, if only you would attempt to do so. I attempt very diligently to understand the arguments of people who disagree with me, which is why I understand all of your biblical assertions, and how you intend to make your points from them. In fact, I have understood all of your arguments since I first heard them, sometime in the seventies (I am assuming this is before you were born?). It is because I understand your reasoning (though I seldom understand your curt remarks, which have little to do with your argumentation) that I remain unpersuaded by your case.

If I did not already know and understand your arguments, I would have to remain more tentative in my own views until I felt that I had understood your case thoroughly. This would be a good approach for you to take as well. You have admitted and/or demonstrated that the arguments for the position you reject are actually beyond your power to comprehend—or, as I suspect, are not among the things you desire to understand. Hasty, poorly-thought-out responses seem to be your specialty. Even as a novice, you could gain more respect among those with whom you disagree (as Paidion has managed to do) if you made a serious effort to understand those with whom you are disagreeing—even if it meant you not being able to fire back such rapid (and ultimately embarrassing) responses so quickly—or even if it meant admitting your mistakes occasionally, when they have been pointed out.

I am sorry to have to be so blunt with you (I don't object to similar bluntness being used in correcting me). I have been sitting back, reading these threads, for a long time without speaking up. I have spoken now because I am finding it difficult to leave these things unsaid.

I am surprised that you object to my saying that Ellen G. White called herself a prophet, when your own citation of her actual words has her saying (as Jesus said about John the Baptist) that she was even more than a prophet. She was more important and more significant than a mere prophet. She objected to being called by that label, because it was apparently not adequate to encompass all that she thought herself to be.

Your analogy to Calvinists was not very apt. You are suggesting that, if I say many people look to EGW as a prophet, then I ought to hold all modern Calvinists (whether they support Calvin himself or not) as accessories to the murder of Michael Servetus. The cases are as parallel as these two lines: )(

If you re-read what I have written to you, and come back saying that you now understand it, then I will be glad to continue dialogue with you. If not, then there does not seem to be any reason to continue making new points, which will not likely be understood any better. Whether the defect lies on your side or on mine, we do not currently seem capable of communicating with each other.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion Steve no matter how incorrect or unsubstantiated it may be. I post under one mode which is question and answer. I ask a question, I answer a question. There is no other way for the truth to be known. Ask a question, answer a question. I never tell anyone the are wrong, misguided, or in error....the scriptures do that. I am certainly rough around the edges in my posting style, no question there. But I tend to be reactionary towards other posters, not the other way around.

It's funny to me Steve that when the kitchen gets hot then the "EGW was a false prophet" comes into the fray in an attempt to cool things off. If I ask a question I expect a reasonable answer, based on the evidence presented in scripture.

Lastly Steve, I'm not looking to convert, change what you or anyone else believes, nor to you have to be sorry to me for stating what you believe. No hard feelings on my part and everything you've said has been cast into the sea. I'm simply looking to express my views and my opinions about scripture and ask a few questions.

[RND]

RND, We can agree clarity is wonderful , yet you completely ignored the straightforward statement of Paul that Christ returns bringing WITH HIM those who had fallen asleep, to unite with their physical bodies to receive immortality at the resurrection.

No Steve, I didn't ignore it, I used scripture in what I consider proper context to explain it. The one's Jesus "brings with Him" are the ones asleep in the ground. If we take the scripture as a whole, the Gospels and Paul's epistles and not just one singular verse, we can see that the "dead" in Christ are raised at the resurrection of Jesus' second advent, not brought with Him from heaven.

Generally speaking Paul's statements on this topic are quite straightforward and clear , for as he said we have an "inner man" and he said we have "spirit,soul and body" and he believed
to die is gain,
depart and be with the Lord
absent from the body and be with the Lord
Christ will return with those who have fallen asleep

These statements are from Paul, not the Babylonians not the Egyptians but from the Apostle Paul. In addition Christ said

the angels carried off Lazarus to Abraham's bosum (his inner man, not a corpse)
Truly i say to you, TODAY you will be with me in paradise (Christ patented the expression "truly i say to you").

If we choose to eliminate most of what the OT, the Gospels and the epistles say about the state of the dead and when they will be resurrected then we can certainly assert the things you assert. But when we see Jesus discussing the "last day," Daniel discussing the "last day," and Paul discussing the "last day" then I would have to assert that the "last day" is fairly significant.

Jesus never addresses bringing those died back with Him when He returns, not once. Instead the language is unmistakable and in keeping with the whole of scripture, not a singular verse. He is the resurrection and He will raise the dead when He returns.

As for Luke 16:19-31 being the absolute authority as to what happens to a man (or woman) when he dies keep in mind Jesus is speaking to Pharisees that were steeped in the "Hellenistic" dually of man that they had accepted as true from the Greeks. In fact spiritual deception or acceptance of another spiritual belief that was not of God is always associated with harlotry and/or adultery. Always. So when Jesus sets them up with verse 18 in Luke 16 He isn't just making an off the cuff remark about adultery.....He is calling these very Pharisees adulterers because they believe what isn't in the Holy Scriptures.

One of the most complete, and Biblicaly accurate and fascinating studies on Luke 16:19-31can be found here and it great and lifting the veil of the standard, yet woefully incorrect teachings bout this parable:

Lazarus and the Rich Man

Enjoy!

All these statements are simple and straightforward and mean what they say and say what they mean therefore i think perhaps the New Covenant changed this situation from the Old Covenant.

"...therefore i think perhaps..." I detect a note of hesitancy here.

Now if soul-sleep is your belief that's fine with me but you must add things to these clear statements to reconcile them to your belief.

"Soul death." Souls (living creatures) die and await resurrection. The "blessed hope."

Tts 2:13 Looking for that blessed hope, and the glorious appearing of the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ;

I have and I use all of scripture to solidify my beliefs, not just a verse here and a verse there.