Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Adventist/Catholic Dialogue On Death

The following is a very interesting and enjoyable dialogue between myself and a Catholic brother who also has a blog. The original content is from a post entitled "Who Continued Creating" regarding Christ's death. As you'll see, we delve into some extremely fascinating topics regarding the theological ramifications that one's belief concerning the state-of-the-dead has on one's view of Christ's death and resurrection. Enjoy!

Thomas' Original Comment-

"Interestingly, in your brief thoughts laid out here, you have also just answered the question of how the dead can be conscious after death. When we die perhaps we slip into that realm where time no longer has a grasp on us. It could be argued that the dead can see the Resurrection already before them - seemingly in a moment they have experienced new life - though to us who are left behind here on earth, time marches on. It is a matter of perspective.

The dead are outside of time and can see time from a new perspective. This is why Jesus could tell the thief, "Today you will be with me in paradise."

Perhaps the dead can view time from the outside looking in - sort of a "window" on time. They can see us, and can know our needs and wants. God can allow this, as He is the Master of all time and space. This is how the dead are able to offer our prayers to God like incense, as in the Book of Revelation. This is why Moses and Elijah could appear with Jesus in the Transfiguration - God can allow them to step through the window of time.

This is also why Jesus could tell the parable of the rich man who wished to warn his brothers of their impending doom. Why would Jesus tell a parable that reflects a FALSE view of death? It makes much more sense that Jesus would reflect TRUTH in his teachings. If the dead man could see his brothers and be conscious of them, then there must be some time/space alteration when we die.

If the dead can offer our prayers, or can appear with Jesus beyond the grave, or experience "paradise" as though it is "today," then time and space must be different when we are dead.

Just as Jesus, after death, could be both "asleep in death" and yet remain the sustainer of creation, so too can those who have died be both asleep and alive in Christ. God is the God of the living not the dead. So who are we to say what that new life is like?

I understand that your immediate response will be, "Just read what I have already posted on this subject." ...Well, I have read that post. But what I am saying is that you are still left with your question above: How can Jesus be "asleep" and yet remain the Sustainer of Creation? If Jesus truly experienced death (which I believe He did) then we must explain death in different terms than your Adventist church seems to explain it. Something is wrong with a "sleeping" death if it means that Jesus ceases to be who He is. However, if we allow that death itself entails a time/space alteration then we have opened up the necessity to re-interpret what you posted about death previously. Perhaps the "sleep" theory relies to heavily on how we perceive time here on earth and doesn't take into consideration God's view of time, and our sharing of God's life after death."

My Initial Response -

"Our difference is this: I don't believe we will ever be outside of time, as God is. If we were outside of time after death, we would then be omnipresent, for we could then be all places at once in the view of those "within time" if we were no longer restricted by time.

This is not my only reason, though, for believing that those attributes belong to God alone. There are also the passages in Isaiah which speak of the redeemed gathering together from new moon to new moon and from sabbath to sabbath to worship God...which to me shows that we, as created beings, are always within the confines of time and space.

But regardless of that fact, for the one who dies and ceases to exist, or sleeps in the grave, as some like to say, it will be as a split second before we open our eyes in the resurrection. They will not be conscious of any passage of time. As you said, it is only to those of us who remain here on earth that it seems like they have been gone for so long.

I don't find any Scriptural evidence for praying to anyone other than God. He is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent...surely He does not need help hearing or answering the prayers. On the contrary, the Bible is clear that God Himself always hears our prayers.

One important thing to remember about parables is that they are designed primarily to teach one truth. If we read into them and try to make doctrines of all the various parts and place meaning where none is intended, we "wrest the Scriptures to our own destruction."

The rich man and Lazarus was certainly not told by Jesus with the intention of explaining what happens when we die. I may write a post on this parable, as it is an interesting one.

Certainly all the saved aren't in Abraham's chest cavity...and certainly they cannot look over and see wicked people burning in agony, let alone have conversations with them...certainly a single drop of water on a burning man's tongue would be of no comfort...and probably most importantly, we cannot ignore the hundreds of Bible verses which show that the dead are "sleeping in their graves", "know nothing", "all their thoughts, love, hate, etc have perished", the "dead don't praise God", the dead "wait in the grave until the resurrection", the dead "have no more portion in anything done under the sun", etc. etc.

To arrive at a correct understanding of any Bible truth, we must get all the Bible passages on the subject, and look at the big picture...when we do that, things become very clear, and parables such as the rich man and Lazarus can be seen for their true meaning.

For me the answer to the question of how Jesus can be in the grave and yet be the sustainer of all things is simple...He is God. :-)

With God all things are possible.

If there is one thing that the state of the dead doctrine relies too heavily on, it is Bible texts. For I must admit...our human minds can come up with all kinds of neat ideas about what happens when you die, but if we listen to the plethora of Bible verses on the subject, we must come to the conclusion that the dead are in the grave until the resurrection.

I do enjoy reading about your point of view, though. Keep 'em coming. :-)"

Thomas' Second Comment -

""I don't find any Scriptural evidence for praying to anyone other than God. He is omnipresent, omniscient and omnipotent...surely He does not need help hearing or answering the prayers."

Just to clarify...when Catholics "pray" to saints, we ask the saints to pray on our behalf - to pray WITH us - we do not pray TO the saints. It is no different than asking any living fellow Christian to pray with you. If God hears all of our prayers, then why would you ask fellow Christians (living or dead) to pray with you? Simple, because it is not a matter going to other Christians INSTEAD of God, rather it is going to God WITH other Christians - a heavenly prayer circle.

My main point is this: I am certain you have many Biblical texts that back up your conclusion about the dead being unconscious or non-existent...but just as you pointed out certain elements of Scripture (in the parables, for instance) should not be taken too literally, I too would say that things like "from sabbath to sabbath" and "from new moon to new moon" should not be taken as literal markings of time. They could be metaphors. And perhaps "sleep" does not mean that the dead are REALLY unconscious from their own perspective, but rather they are only "asleep" from OUR perspective. Those of us who are left here in this life experience their death as a "going to sleep." The Bible uses this analogy to describe a certain perspective of death. But even Jesus said that God is the God of the LIVING, when referring to the Patriarchs. The Patriarchs are dead, yet they are also alive. It depends on your perspective.

All of this is very interesting, but it is just you and I going round and round about who is interpreting correctly. When it comes down to it, we won't convince each other based on the "Bible Alone." We each have a different way of interpreting the Bible, and it is that interpretation and not the BIBLE that is the question. It is a matter of two competing "systems" of interpretation. This is why I like to study the history of these doctrines to discover whether they can be traced to ancient sources.

Anyway, you are still left with a problem...Either Jesus really did die and experienced an unconscious death (as you define death) and so ceased to be the Sustainer of Creation, or He did not really die, He experienced something other than death, remaining conscious, and so his passion was a farce in that respect."

Thomas' Third Comment -

"Allow me to clarify...

To begin with, let us say that you are correct. Let's assume that "death" is a state of unconsciousness. Let's put aside any other doctrinal differences you and I might have about saints or time/space awareness or anything else, and let's just say that "death" is exactly what Adventists claim it to be...When someone experiences death they go unconscious (or cease to exist...or however you understand that to be). Death means that the person ceases to be a conscious being.

Now we are faced with passages such as this..."...he humbled himself and became obedient to death — even death on a cross!" (Philippians 2:8)It would seem that being "obedient to death" would mean to subject oneself to the reality of death. And the reality of death is that it is an unconscious state, or to be put out of existence altogether. To say otherwise is to say that Jesus was NOT obedient to death. He did not really "die."

If Jesus is God (which I assume you believe in the doctrine of the Trinity), and Jesus really did die which the Scriptures say He did, then we must say that God ceased to be God when Jesus died... That is, if death means what you say it means, then when Jesus died the Son of God stopped being God and went dormant or out of existence completely.

That pretty much sums up your initial post. You have stated the dilemma that is present in the Adventist position. But rather than question the doctrine itself you defend your position by simply saying, "Well, all things are possible with God."

So what does that mean?

Does it mean that Jesus did not experience death the same way that you and I do? Well then, that means that the Scripture is false when it says that Jesus was "obedient to death." It means that Jesus did NOT experience death at all. He experienced something different than death - some altered version of death. He was not obedient to death, but obedient to some pseudo-death - He did not follow through in His obedience nor did He experience the death that He came to conquer. How could He conquer that which He never faced?

This possible "alternative version" of death may in theory preserve Jesus' divinity, but it creates a huge problem for the Adventist position. It calls into question the reality of Jesus' Passion and death...

Either way, this one doctrine seems to conflict with the bigger issue of the person Jesus, the Son of God, and what His life and death means to us. When that happens, when a core precept of Christianity is challenged by a minor doctrine, it seems the wise thing to do would be to explore a different way of understanding your notion of death.

Please understand that I am not attacking the Bible in any of this. You and I both use the Bible to arrive at our conclusions. But the Bible can be interpreted to mean a great many things. What matters is whether it is being interpreted correctly. You yourself admit that some passages should be interpreted literally and other figuratively (like Jesus' parables, for instance). The problem is that many people disagree on how that should be - what is literal and what is not. If you believe that the Adventist Church has cornered the market on biblical interpretation it is no different than when any other church claims to do the same thing...including the Catholic Church, I might add. We ALL believe that we "got it right." And we believe we got there with biblical passages to back it up. I don't blame you for that.

So we could go round and round over who is right or wrong...but it is all based on interpretation, and these things can differ. The only reason I posted is to point out that your original post is right on the money about the Adventist problem with death. It seems to contradict Christianity itself. It seems to be a glaring problem with Adventism. I would explore this doctrine further if I were you and see who first proposed it, see if it is an ancient Christian belief or a modern invention. I'm sure the Scriptures seem to back it up, but when the doctrine seems to challenge Jesus' Sonship or the reality of His death that would be a huge red flag to me."

My Second Response -

"In regard to the first of your two recent replies, I just want to clarify my position about the Scriptures.

"but just as you pointed out certain elements of Scripture (in the parables, for instance) should not be taken too literally"

When I say that parts of Scripture should not be taken literally, I mean a very narrow portion of Scriptures...mainly parables. I think it is very dangerous to take this fact further than absolutely necessary...in other words, I believe Scriptures should be taken literally unless there is an obvious reason not to. So, the majority of Scripture should, in my view, be taken quite literally.

So I cannot take the numerous Scriptures referencing death as sleep and the state-of-the-dead and say that they should not be taken literally.

In reply to your second post...

For a certainty the Scriptures are clear that Jesus did die, and He was raised back to life. Those two facts must remain the solid foundation.

So, since I believe the Scriptures which say that death is essentially ceasing to exist, that is exactly what I believe Jesus did. I believe He died. Then...on the third day, He was raised again! :-) (That's an "amen!" moment)

The argument you posed is interesting because it's almost identical to the argument that I believe causes such a problem for those who believe we suffer in hell forever. It goes like this:

If the wages of sin isn't death, as the Bible claims, but instead burning throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity...if that is the wages of sin...then Christ did not pay the full cost...since He would have had to burn in hell forever to take our place.

Again, I want to reiterate that I believe the vast majority of Scripture should be taken literally, at face value, unless there is a clear and obvious reason not to. The only instance I can think of when we shouldn't take the Bible literally, is in parables and in prophetic visions which are full of symbolism, such as Daniel's visions and the book of Revelation, etc.

In my mind this fact doesn't lessen Christ's sacrifice or His divinity, but on the contrary, like I mentioned before, this biblical view of death makes it possible that Christ did pay the full wages of sin, which is death, and not burning in hell forever.

Rest assured, I will study this doctrine even more carefully, paying special attention to Christ's death and resurrection. :-)"

Thomas' Fourth Comment -

"I do apologize for going on so much…but I find this so fascinating. Thank you for indulging me...

You wrote: "I believe Scriptures should be taken literally unless there is an obvious reason not to."

I would agree to that premise. I guess we would differ on what that "obvious reason" might be. To me this issue of Christ's death is an "obvious reason" that we should at least consider some alternative interpretation as to what "death" means. (In other words, Adventists may have it wrong, and in having it wrong it may jeopardize your understanding of Christ’s divinity. And that would certainly be a “serious” reason.)

You also wrote: "If the wages of sin isn't death, as the Bible claims, but instead burning throughout the ceaseless ages of eternity...if that is the wages of sin...then Christ did not pay the full cost..."

Whoever said that the wages of sin is NOT death? I think you assume too much about non-Adventist doctrine. The wages of sin IS death (I am not denying that Biblical fact); and Jesus paid that price…He died! …But the question still remains WHAT is death. Is it an unconscious state where we are snuffed out of existence (in which case the Son of God ceased to be) or is it a conscious state where we still experience something?

If it is an unconscious state then the Adventists are right and Jesus ceased to be God when He died - He in fact went out of existence altogether, as you say – which means the Son of God was nonexistent for three days. That is a false doctrine by any standard of authentic Christian belief. God cannot stop existing or change His nature as God. He is eternal and unchanging.

So death must not be a cessation of existence…Unless you want to claim that Jesus did not REALLY experience death (which would then challenge core Christian doctrine on Jesus’ Passion). Either way you have a problem.

If however, death is a conscious state, and we do not cease to exist, then what do the dead experience? Perhaps they experience union with God and with all of the saints in Heaven? …But what if you reject God and Jesus and salvation…then what do you experience. Are you snuffed out then? Perhaps. Or perhaps that is where all of this “hellfire” comes in. We can leave that an open question for now.

Let me offer a larger view of what I am saying. I’ll summarize one possible interpretation of “death” and what Jesus’ death means. I’ll start from the beginning…

We go through our whole lives isolated from one another. We are separated by our physical and spiritual limitations: we have separate bodies, we are limited by space and time, we are limited by our experiences, we may be rejected by others, or abused, and so on, all of these things drive a wedge between us and our fellow man. We are also isolated from God and from His Grace. Since the fall of man in the Garden of Eden we have been cut off from God and we have had antagonism between one another.

What God wants is to bring us into Communion with Him and with each other, thus Jesus calls us to love one another and to love God above all else – LOVE conquers the isolation and division that mankind suffers from. When we open ourselves to Jesus and God’s love He can repair our fallen state; He can heal our isolation from Him and from one another.

Now what is death? Death is the penalty for sin (just as you say). Death is the ultimate isolation. It is a cutting off from all others. We experience tastes of this isolation in this life (we experience a certain isolation as I described above), but death is the final wage of sin. When we die we are cut off completely from God and from one another. That does not mean that we cease to exist. It means we experience consciously this extreme sense of isolation. It is a radical sense of being cast out and abandoned. And there is no way any mere human can overcome this isolation that death brings about. We cannot conquer death on our own.

Jesus came to earth as God-made-flesh. He is a man, and being a man He chose to experience death just as we do and He confronted this feeling of isolation that death brings about. He did conscious spiritual battle with death. BUT…and this is huge…Jesus is also God…and God is LOVE. When pure divine LOVE enters into the place of utter isolation that is death….what happens? Death is conquered!!! (There’s your Amen moment ;) )

The wages of sin is certainly death. But death is not a snuffing out of existence. Death is utter isolation and hopelessness (sometimes described as unquenchable fire or being shut out from the wedding feast or other metaphors). God brings us hope by shedding the light of Christ’s Love into the dark place of death. Death is transformed from the inside out.

Now, because of Jesus, when one dies with Christ, one finds LOVE waiting on the other side. Death looses its sting.

(I might add…. You argue that Jesus did not pay the full price because He did not suffer hell eternally. Well He was also not snuffed out eternally. So if it is the “eternal” part that you take issue with, then your doctrine suffers from the same problem. Wouldn’t it make more sense if Jesus went out of existence and then never came back? Isn’t THAT what death was all about before He came? Wouldn’t THAT be taking on the FULL penalty of death?)

(Also I must note that what I gave as one possible interpretation is NOT the OFFICIAL Catholic position. It is ONLY ONE theologians attempt at an explanation. And this theory has its Catholic critics. The Catholic Church actually allows for private interpretation as long as one’s private views do not conflict with core doctrine or that you do not force your view on others.)"

My Last Response -

"No need to apologize, I quite enjoy the dialogue! I'm just glad that you don't get angry and frusterated like so many tend to do when talking theology with those whose views differ greatly.

This is the first thought that came to mind when I read your post:

The first lie in the Bible was told by Satan, and it is very revealing. As his first lie to the human race, we can learn a little about one of the main deceptions he uses today.

It's found in Genesis 3:4, "Then the serpent said to the woman, 'You will not surely die' "

Interesting that Satan told Eve that she wouldn't really die.

Now, oddly enough, worldly people define death MORE correctly that most church members. For worldly people say that death means death.

Webster's defines "death" as: "Extinction of life."

Cambridge defines "death" as: "The end of life."

Yet the devil has implanted this idea within the churches that says, "When you die, you don't REALLY die...you go on living in a different form."

The last part of Satan's first lie was this: "You will not surely die. For God knows that in the day you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

It's amazing how similar that sounds to what most churches teach today...that when we die, we don't really die, but instead our eyes are opened, we become a spirit similar to God and we somehow know good and evil.

The truth is that only God truly knows good and evil, and He has to tell us what is good and what is evil.

Like you said, it seems to come down to what we consider "death." But I still ask the question, if the wages of sin is death, and death means burning in hell forever, then how could Christ have paid the full price if He only "died" for three days?

I don't see Adventist's belief that death really means death somehow jeopardizes the divinity of Christ. To me, it only amplifies His love, that He was willing to die, really die, for you and me.

That was a good "Amen moment"! I couldn't help but have a big smile on my face as I read your account of Christ conquering death...good stuff!

I see what you're saying in regards to the eternal aspect of the wages of sin. But I don't believe it's the "eternal" part that is the wages of sin, it's "death...period."

What I mean is that it doesn't matter how long you cease to exist, it's the fact that you've been destroyed...perished. So Christ paid the full penalty, He died, or perished, on our behalf. The amazing miracle that we can't fathom is that Christ, as you said, conquered death and was raised again!

How do Catholics interpret passages like John 3:16 which say that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life?

If we lived forever separated from God, wouldn't that still be everlasting life? And does "perish" not really mean perish but, instead, living forever separated from God?

Like you, I must note that I'm surely no trained theologian of the Adventist faith...so I may not always say what a real theologian would...these are only my personal thoughts.

One thing that I appreciate is that regardless of what we believe about what happens when we die, if we abide in Christ while we're here and follow the light He's revealed to us, we'll just be happy to make it to heaven, regardless of the things we didn't have quite right. :-)"

So, I hope you've been blessed by this peek into the theological musings of a Seventh-day Adventist and a Roman Catholic.

19 comments:

  1. I am honored that you saw fit to post as an original post anything I had to say. I thank you. I am flattered. As you said, neither of us are trained theologians, but I think we both made a valiant effort at delving into a weighty matter. We both deserve a pat on the back.

    A few things and then I will leave the topic for others to read and/or comment on.

    1) I would say that this issue of "eternal" punishment/nonexistence is a real sticking point for me. It is the word "eternal" that I take issue with. You want to slap on "eternal" when you talk about my belief in hell or suffering for sins, but when the issue turns to your version of "death/sleep" you say that the "eternity" of it is not the problem, but just the fact that we cease to exist. You criticize my position because Jesus did not suffer "eternally," but I NEVER said that "eternity" was a requirement for His suffering. You are assuming that point. You are projecting that onto my argument. You are setting the rules for your own doctrine while at the same time setting the rules for MINE. That hardly seems fair.
    On this subject you said: "I don't believe it's the 'eternal' part that is the wages of sin, it's 'death...period.'"
    And I must reply: Yes, I agree!! It is DEATH, not eternal suffering. So drop the "eternal" part when you discuss my doctrine. We agree that it is DEATH that is the issue...I simple define death differently.

    2) So let's say that you are right. Jesus came to save us from DEATH...and death means that we cease to exist. Your position creates too many questions and contradicts too many core Christian doctrines that I am afraid it is impossible for a Christian to accept.
    If Jesus came to save us from the wages of sin, and the wages of sin is death, then why on earth do Christians still die? Did Jesus not save us from this fate? If He took on death so that we will not have to die, then why do we still die?
    Is it because now that Jesus came our length of death is not eternal? We can now come back from non-existence by being resurrected. Is that it? Well, that would certainly make more sense. Jesus ceased to exist for a short time, so that now, when we cease to exist, it will only be for a short time too. He shortened our death from eternity... Oh...but there's that word "eternal" again. You reject "eternity" as being part of your doctrine on death, so that must not be it.
    But let's say that it is. Let's say that Jesus died for three days, so that now when we die it will only be for a short time too and then we will be raised up. That means that Jesus saved us from a worse fate of being dead for "eternity." Well then, that would mean that Jesus did not take on the FULL penalty of death which would be ETERNAL death. If He was saving us from ETERNAL death, wouldn't He have to take on ETERNAL death for it to be the full penalty of death? Explain that. Why isn't Jesus still dead?
    But no that can't be right. You said that "eternity" has nothing to do with it. Just "death...period." Jesus came to save us from death. So again, why do we still die? I guess Jesus didn't really save us if your doctrine is true. Or He just didn't take on the full punishment? Which is it?
    And still we are left with this: If Jesus is God, and as God He is the Sustainer of Creation, as you and I both believe, then when He died why did creation not cease to exist with Him? He was out of existence for three days. Who sustained creation while He was gone? Your doctrine still does not answer this vital question. Your doctrine creates a huge error concerning the divinity of Christ.

    3) "Yet the devil has implanted this idea within the churches that says, 'When you die, you don't REALLY die...you go on living in a different form.'"
    No, the devil said that when Adam and Eve ate the fruit they would not die. That was his lie. He did not define "death." His definition of death does not appear in the text. He lied about whether the action of eating the fruit would "cause" death. His lie was not a definition of what it means to die. Besides, I would be hesitant to use anything the devil said to back up an argument anyway.

    4)"How do Catholics interpret passages like John 3:16 that says that whoever believes in Him will not perish, but have everlasting life?"
    Frankly, I might ask the same question of you. We still "perish" don't we? We still die. The verse says that those who believe will NOT perish. How do you reconcile your doctrine with this verse? We believe and yet we still perish (cease to exist)?
    There is no ONE single interpretation for Catholics on any Biblical verse. I just want to make that clear. There is much room for private reading and interpretation of Scripture. This verse you cite and all other verses have many great meanings for Catholics. So I would not exclude any of those in my own reading of the verse.
    It certainly seems that "perish" could mean "cease to exist." So when the passage says that those who believe will not "perish," it could mean that they will not "cease to exist." I would agree with that. It seems your doctrine does not agree with the verse though, since we DO in fact cease to exist according to Adventists. However, it would be interesting to see the original Greek and know what word best translates there.
    But it is also interesting to read Christ's words in Matthew: "Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matthew 25:41)
    An "eternal fire" is awaiting those who receive this judgment from God. So there must be some eternal punishment beyond the grave.

    I thank you again for your kindness and patience. I hope you are able to resolve the issue of Christ’s divinity. That point is very troubling for me concerning your doctrine. To ignore it is to favor your own doctrine over the Biblical truth of Jesus’ Sonship. I think there is a better interpretation of death than the one you offer.

    God Bless and thanks again,
    Thomas

    ReplyDelete
  2. In regard to your first point, maybe I misunderstand the Catholic (and large majority of Protestant) view of the punishment for the wicked. I thought that Catholics and most Protestants believed that the punishment for sin, if one doesn't accept Christ, is being burned forever. Is this not a correct understanding of the Catholic view?

    If the punishment for sin doesn't include "eternal" suffering, why do most churches claim that the unrighteous will indeed burn forever? If that is not the necessary punishment why would God choose arbitrarily to burn people forever, instead of destroying them?

    I'm not sure how anyone could ever enjoy heaven while many of their loved ones are being burned and tortured somewhere. I'm not sure how God Himself, who is love, can be happy while continually burning His children throughout eternity.

    If death is defined as anything other than the cessation of life, it ceases to be death. Instead, death becomes some sort of metamorphosis, simply changing from one type of body to another.

    Here's something I found from an Adventist theologian after looking at all the Hebrew words used for death in the Old Testament, "Throughout the OT the words for death point to a single understanding: the complete termination of life, its expressions, and functions."

    And then after looking at all the Greek words relating to death in the New Testament, "In NT terminology as well, death is characterized as the end of life, and as the enemy of God and humankind. Thus the entire biblical terminology for death and dying combines to portray a single understanding of death, namely, the termination of all existence for the whole human being." (Handbook of Seventh-day Adventist Theology, 2000, pg 315, 316)

    In regard to your second question about why Christians still die, let's look at a quick overview of the biblical description of the cycle of life.

    1.) "Life" - Genesis 2:7, "And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."

    So firstly we see what a human being consists of, namely, "dust" + "breath of life" = "living being"

    So our flesh, or dust, plus our life force, or breath of life, equals a living being, or soul as it's translated in the KJV.

    Also we see in Job 27:3, "All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils."

    The spirit of God is in his nostrils? Definitely speaking about the breath of life.

    2.) "Death" - Eccl. 12:7, "Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it."

    Describing what happens when we die. The dust, our body, returns to the earth, and the spirit, or breathe of life, returns to God.

    Notice it doesn't say this only happens with the righteous, but to all men. So if we say the spirit is some sort of ghostly version of us without a body, then both righteous and wicked go back to God at death.

    So in this verse we see that death is the reverse of life: you have body and spirit, dust and breathe, then death is "dust" - "breathe" = death.

    So when we die, the life-breath is expired by the living being and returned to God, who gave it.

    Genesis 25:8, "Abraham breathed his last and died",
    1 Kings 17:17, "His illness was so severe that there was no breath left in him",
    Job 34:14, 15, "If He should take back His spirit to Himself, and gather to Himself his breath, all flesh would perish together, and man would return to dust"
    Psalm 104:29, "When Thou takest away their breath, they die and return to their dust"

    3.) "State of the dead" - Eccl. 9:5,6, "For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun."

    Now we see the state of the dead, or what "death" means. We see the dead know nothing. They have no feelings for their love, hatred and envy have perished. Lastly we see that the dead have nothing to do with anything that happens here on earth.

    Psalm 115:17, "The dead do not praise the LORD, nor any who go down into silence."

    Surely if the righteous went to God when they died they'd praise the Lord...but here the Bible tells us that the dead do not praise the Lord, but go down into silence.

    Christ Himself tells us that the dead are in the grave awaiting the resurrection:

    John 5:28,29, "For the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear His voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment."

    So Christ says that the dead "are in the tombs", and that they'll "come forth" at the resurrection.

    Also Daniel 12:2, "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, some to shame and everlasting contempt."

    Here we see the same exact truth given by the Bible.

    So we see that the dead are sleeping in the dust, resting in the tombs. We also see that there will be two resurrections: one for the righteous, and one for the wicked.

    4.) "After resurrection" - Revelation 20:6, "Blessed and holy is he who has part in the first resurrection. Over such the second death has no power, but they shall be priests of God and of Christ, and shall reign with Him a thousand years."

    So we see that those who come up in the first resurrection, or as Jesus called it "the resurrection of life", are saved from the second death.

    This is the answer to your question about why Christians still die if the wages of sin is death. True, sin caused all death, but the wages of sin is what the Bible calls "the second death"...a death from which there is no resurrection. A death that lasts forever. This is the miracle of Christ's resurrection...He died the second death for us...but somehow He defeated death.

    Revelation 20:11-15, "Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire."

    So we see after the great white throne judgment, the wicked are destroyed in the lake of fire, and this is called the second death.

    So in answer to your question, this is how Christ saved us from death...the second death.

    How Christ was the Creator and Sustainer of all things while He was here on earth, having laid aside His prerogatives as God, is a mystery. But like I said, my hypothesis is that since God is outside of time, He already created all things and sustained all things. Consider this:

    According to Hebrews God ceased from creating from creating after the creation week. When Genesis says on the seventh day that God rested...the word "rested" is shabbat, meaning to cease. Where we get our word "Sabbath".

    So if God stopped creating, how did everything after that point get made?

    Also consider this: The Bible calls Jesus the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

    How could He be slain from the foundation of the world when He hadn't yet been to calvary? How could His atonement save everyone who died before the cross? He is outside of time...He was slain from the foundation of the world, He created and sustains all things eternally...He already has created and sustained all things, He is creating and sustaining all things, He will forever be creating and sustaining all things. He is unsearchable and beyond understanding. What a Holy God we serve.

    Remember this too as we try to wrap our finite minds around who, and how, God is:

    Deut 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."

    Some things we will never fully understand, if at all, until we get to heaven.

    Like you said, the devil said that sin would not result in death...just as most churches today say that sin won't result in death, because we're all immortal and can't be destroyed. We'll just be burned forever.

    But God said sinners "will surely die", "the soul that sins, it will die", they'll "perish", they'll be "destroyed", they'll be "turned to ashes", among other things. These are just the terms I can think of off the top of my head that the Bible uses to describe what happens to the wicked.

    Most churches teach that all souls are immortal...but the Bible teaches the opposite.

    1 Timothy 6:16 says, speaking of God, "who alone has immortality"

    So the Bible says only God is immortal.

    The Bible teaches that immortality is a gift that will be given ONLY to the redeemed:

    John 10:28, Jesus speaking, "And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand."

    Jesus said He GIVES eternal life to those who follow Him.

    And of course, John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life."

    Only those who believe in Christ receive everlasting life...the rest perish.

    This gift of eternal life, or immortality, is not given at death, but at the resurrection.

    1 Cor 15:52-54, "For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”"

    So the Bible says it's only in the Day of the Lord, the last day, the Second Coming of Christ, when the trumpet is blown, that the dead in Christ will be raised incorruptible, and put on immortality.

    Adventists interpret passages like John 3:16 just the way it sounds. The wicked will perish in the lake of fire, which is called the second death. For the most part we all die the first death. But those who believe in Christ will receive everlasting life, and will not perish.

    Notice that in the verse you mentioned, Matt 25:41, it's not the punishment or the devil that's called eternal, but the fire itself. The fire of God is indeed eternal.

    Notice Jude verse 7, "as Sodom and Gomorrah, and the cities around them in a similar manner to these, having given themselves over to sexual immorality and gone after strange flesh, are set forth as an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire."

    Here the Bible says Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed with "eternal fire", yet they are not still burning today. No, they were turned to ashes.

    Like you said, eternal punishement is awaiting the wicked. That verse is found in Matt 25:46,
    "And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

    Notice that it's not everlasting punishing...continual present tense. But the punishment is everlasting. In other words, the result of the punishment is everlasting. If the punishment is death, as the Bible says, indeed the second death, then truly that punishment is everlasting.

    Really, no need to thank me, for this takes no patience on my behalf...I thoroughly enjoy it! It's nice to have someone who is interested in debating the deeper issues of theology. Most people could care less, and that's sad.

    I have given many many Scriptures which agree with Adventist position on the state of the dead...I have heard many people give eloquent explanations of why they believe differently, but I've never heard anyone answer any of those simple verses like those mentioned in Eccl 9, or Psalm 115, or the others.

    If you could give me an explanation of those verses I would be greatly intrigued. I would probably disagree, but I would be very glad to finally hear someone explain them in the light of their beliefs.

    Listen, the Catholic church is at least honest about its power. They boldly claim to have the power to change the sacredness of the Sabbath to Sunday, whereas Protestants give mindless philosophical reasons for adhering to this Catholic change. I don't agree that the Catholic church has that power, but at least it's honest.

    Convert’s Catechism of Catholic Doctrine by Reverend Peter Geiermann. “Question: Which is the Sabbath day? Answer: Saturday is the Sabbath day. Question: Why do we observe Sunday instead of Saturday? Answer: We observe Sunday instead of Saturday because the Catholic Church in the Council of Laodicea transferred the solemnity from Saturday to Sunday.”

    From Ferraris Ecclesiastical Dictionary, an official Catholic book with the imprimatur of the Vatican, regarding the Pope:

    "The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws."

    "The Pope is of so great dignity and so exalted that he is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God."

    "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown, as king of heaven and of earth and of hell."

    "So that if it were possible that the angels might err in the faith, or might think contrary to the faith, they could be judged and excommunicated by the Pope."

    Do YOU really believe this Catholic doctrine?

    Listen, it may sound funny, but I think God is calling you to leave the Catholic church and join His remnant. You obviously have a passion for theology, God can use people like you who don't bend to the liberal mindset of today's world, and worse, today's church.

    Ignatius of Antioch wrote, "Labour together with one another; strive in company together, run together, suffer together, sleep together [in death], and awake together [in the resurrection], as stewards, and associates, and servants of God" (To Polycarp, 6. 9, 10).

    Irenaeus of Lyons taught the souls of the disciples at death would go to "the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God" (Against Heresies 5. 31. 2)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Hi, Am very much intrigued by the level of maturity in these discussions,at least thats what i get from the comments lol.. Interestingly i thought both parties initially did make scripture there bases and refrained from using the Bible. I gather it was more reasoning.Permit me to say frankly that what the bible leaves as mysteries to us would remain what they are MYSTERIES.But note anything information that is salvivic i hope i get the correct word in nature God has not left it in obscurity for us Mortals to figure out.
    He has made the issues of surrounding death very plain .
    There is no life after you die.
    The thoughts cease.
    The God breath life is taken away.
    The mystery of the god man Jesus is unfathomable if we are to employ scientific knowledge.
    A God who operates outside of time is something no one can wrap there finite mind around.
    2Tim 3:16 .. He has provide enough In the Bible for our knowledge, faith and salvation and much more.

    Keep debating guys its good to stretch the mind. am not sure we can answer all questions especially those the Bible do not address.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I am responding in two parts. First concerning The catholic Church and some general questions you had…

    “Listen, the Catholic church is at least honest about its power…I don't agree that the Catholic church has that power, but at least it's honest.”
    >> Thank for that acknowledgement. I do not expect you to accept it as true, but at least you see the Catholic Church’s position is starkly different than Protestants.

    ”From Ferraris Ecclesiastical Dictionary…"The Pope is of so great authority and power, that he is able to modify, declare, or interpret even divine laws." "The Pope…is not mere man, but as it were God, and the vicar of God." "Hence the Pope is crowned with a triple crown…." "…the angels might …be judged and excommunicated by the Pope."
    Do YOU really believe this Catholic doctrine?”
    >> I think it is very poorly worded. I believe the doctrine, but I disagree with the wording. The Pope is the “Vicar of Christ” – He stands in Christ’s place as Shepherd of the Church on earth. Whatever is declared loosed on earth is loosed in heaven, and what is declared bound is bound. Jesus bestowed that power on Peter and Peter’s office (the papacy). So in that regard one could say that the pope’s office transcends mere man, it reaches up to heaven. God recognizes this power of the papacy…He bestowed that power on the office of Peter. That is not to say that the pope is equal to God (which I think a closer reading of the texts you cited would reveal, if it were read in the full context), but the pope’s office is bigger than the man who occupies it. It involves God’s power, and yes, God’s power is that great.

    “Listen, it may sound funny, but I think God is calling you to leave the Catholic church….”
    >> You’re right…It does sound funny. I’m fine right where I am. The Catholic Church can trace itself back to the First Century. It is the only Church that can truly claim to be the same Church that Jesus founded. The Catholic Church compiled the Bible and passed on Apostolic Tradition. The bishops in union with the Pope have authority from God to teach the Truth of Christian doctrine. God’s grace is poured out in the Sacraments of the Church, most especially in the Holy Eucharist. If I left the Church I would be separating myself from Christ’s Body.
    I do appreciate your offer, but no thanks. (I assure you, I extend the same offer to you.)

    “I thought that Catholics and most Protestants believed that the punishment for sin, if one doesn't accept Christ, is being burned forever. Is this not a correct understanding of the Catholic view?”
    >> Not entirely. I cannot speak for Protestants, but for Catholics some form of punishment short of eternity could be the result of our personal sin. Purgatory (the cleansing of the soul before entering heaven) is not “eternal” – so Catholics have a different view of sin and punishment than most Protestants. The wages of sin is death…that is a Biblical view…you are right in saying that. Then we must look at what the word “death” means and how we experience death. Our experience of death may vary according to how we live our lives. Eternal separation from God is one possible experience. We call that “hell.” I would personally be hesitant to describe hell as LITERALLY “fire” and “burning.” They are great metaphors, but I would not commit to a literal interpretation of those terms.

    “If the punishment for sin doesn't include ‘eternal’ suffering, why do most churches claim that the unrighteous will indeed burn forever?”
    >> Because the Bible says so. Remember the quote from Matthew I gave earlier….Those on His left will be cast into the eternal fire. You say that they then cease to exist. That could be, but the text could go either way. It does not say that they cease to exist. What would be the purpose of and “eternal fire” if nothing remained to burn? There are other passages that refer to being shut out of the “wedding feast or other such metaphors. They usually do not imply a total DESTRUCTION of those suffering.

    “…why would God choose arbitrarily to burn people forever, instead of destroying them?”
    >> God does not “choose” to send people to hell. And it is certainly NOT arbitrary. People “choose” to either accept God and enter into His loving embrace, or they can reject His Grace and remain “isolated” from Him and from others. It is OUR choice not God’s. We choose to obey or disobey. We suffer the consequences of our choices. There is no need to blame God or say that HE is doing this in some arbitrary fashion. It is our own choice to reject the life-line that God throws out to us.

    ”I'm not sure how anyone could ever enjoy heaven while many of their loved ones are being burned and tortured somewhere.”
    >> Then you underestimate the joys of heaven where “every tear will be wiped away.” Heavenly bliss will overcome any pain or sorrow.
    But besides that, hell is not necessarily “fire and brimstone” or bizarre “tortures.” It is an isolation from God and others that shuts a person out from the bliss of Heaven. And we choose it for ourselves. God does not stand over us with strange torturing devises and stoking the fire to make it hotter. That is a rather simplistic view of things.
    No one can really answer your questions on these things. It is for us to discover beyond the grave.

    “If death is defined as anything other than the cessation of life, it ceases to be death. Instead, death becomes some sort of metamorphosis, simply changing from one type of body to another.”
    >> That could be. Maybe you need to reinterpret “death.” Perhaps you are starting to break free from your Adventist chains. I suggest you follow this thought through.

    You also quoted Ignatius and Irenaeus:
    Ignatius of Antioch wrote, "Labour together with one another; strive in company together, run together, suffer together, sleep together [in death], and awake together [in the resurrection], as stewards, and associates, and servants of God" (To Polycarp, 6. 9, 10).
    Irenaeus of Lyons taught the souls of the disciples at death would go to "the invisible place allotted to them by God, and there remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God" (Against Heresies 5. 31. 2)
    >>These quotes do not appear to contradict anything that I have said. In the Ignatius quote he uses the word “sleep” – this can be a metaphor that describes what we see when a body dies. The Bible uses this term as well. It all depends how far you carry this metaphor. And in the Irenaeus quote, he speaks of the “invisible place” where souls “remain until the resurrection, awaiting that event; then receiving their bodies, and rising in their entirety, that is bodily, just as the Lord arose, they shall come thus into the presence of God" That seems to imply that the souls are still in existence. They are “awaiting” the restoration of their bodies.
    (If I am not mistaken, Irenaeus also had a high regard for papal authority I might add. Would you like to cite him on any other doctrines?)

    ReplyDelete
  5. As for the specific topic at hand….

    1.) On your point about: Breath = Soul, life
    >> All very interesting. I belief the Hebrew word for breath is “ruhe” (or something like that – I would have to look it up). The Greek is “pneuma” (that’s where we get the word “pneumonia”). These can mean “breath” or “spirit” or “soul.” We use the English word “spirit” from the Latin “spiritus.” And in theology we use the term “pneumatology” for the study of spiritual beings or spiritual phenomena.
    So when the Bible says “breath” it could mean literally “breath” – as in inhaling and exhaling air, and not necessarily soul. Or it could mean “spirit” as in an animating life-force. Or it could mean both. We use the term in many different ways because the Bible suggests a depth of meaning. You seem to take one of those meanings and draw it out to its extreme. I do not always see it that way in every Biblical text. Nor do I believe the Bible means it that way.

    2.) "Death" - Eccl. 12:7, "Then the dust will return to the earth as it was, and the spirit will return to God who gave it."
    >> The verse says that the “spirit” returns to God. It does not say that it ceases to exist.
    And two verses earlier it says: “Then man goes to his eternal home…” That doesn’t sound like a cessation of existence. It sounds like a movement of the soul to another realm.
    Since man “goes to his ETERNAL home” then it cannot mean that we simply return to “dust.” Dust is of the earth – and the earth is NOT “eternal” – the earth shall pass away and a new heaven and a new earth shall come. So our “eternal” home must be some reference to the spiritual nature of man. When we “return to God” there must be something eternal about our spiritual nature. That is the “home” to which we go when we die.

    3.) "State of the dead" - Eccl. 9:5,6, "For the living know that they will die; but the dead know nothing, And they have no more reward, for the memory of them is forgotten. Also their love, their hatred, and their envy have now perished; nevermore will they have a share in anything done under the sun."
    On this and other passages you said: “…I've never heard anyone answer any of those simple verses like those mentioned in Eccl 9, or Psalm 115, or the others.”
    >> I will do my best to answer… Before Christ the Jews had many competing ideas about death. Many rejected the resurrection of the dead, for instance. This verse you cite, and the others like it, from the Old Testament, not only seem to support your doctrine it also seems to suggest that the resurrection will never happen…“NEVERMORE will they have a share in anything done under the sun.” How far do you want to take your interpretation? Will you side with some of the Jews and say that we will NEVER be raise again? If you take these things in their absolute literal sense then the dead will NEVER, EVER rise again.
    I offer another alternative. We could see this as a pre-Christian understanding of death. We could see Christ’s death as a shattering of this former fate for the dead. (The same can be said for your other Old Testament verses.) Jesus changed our experience of death. That is how He defeated it.

    “Psalm 115:17, "The dead do not praise the LORD, nor any who go down into silence."
    Surely if the righteous went to God when they died they'd praise the Lord...but here the Bible tells us that the dead do not praise the Lord, but go down into silence.”
    >> Yet, the Book of Revelation tells us that the dead ARE in fact praising God and offering the prayers of the saints on earth as incense before the Lord. I don’t know about you, but I am a New Testament Christian, not an Old Testament Jew. Christ came and changed death. Death lost its sting.

    ”Christ Himself tells us that the dead are in the grave awaiting the resurrection”
    >> Yes the resurrection of the Body. That is what they await.
    Christ also said that God is the God of the living…and He made that comment referring to the Patriarchs…who were long since dead. Also Jesus conversed with Moses and Elijah. They were dead, but they appeared before the Apostles and spoke with Jesus. I believe that this event actually occurred. I take it literally. So I must conclude that death is not a cessation of existence. Moses and Elijah are alive to God. Jesus tells us this. He is the God of the living.

    4.) “This is the miracle of Christ's resurrection...He died the second death for us...but somehow He defeated death.”
    >> Here is the serious flaw in your doctrine. And this is the reason I must reject it. You say that Jesus came to take on the wages of sin. You insist that He took on the full penalty, so that He would suffer in our place. And you say that the real wage…the real penalty is this “second death.” And the Second Death means that we cease to exist for all eternity.
    Then you admit that Jesus didn’t REALLY take on the second death. He only took on the first death. So I must conclude that He did not suffer in our place, He did not take on the FULL penalty for sin. His Passion is incomplete. It is not a true substitution for us. He did not die for all eternity.
    But besides that the worst part is that you insist that even in the first death, Jesus ceased to exist for a time. Which means that God the Son was snuffed out of existence. Then I must say that Adventist reject the divinity of Christ, they reject His divine Sonship. He is not eternal, and He lacks the ability to truly conquer death.

    I really only wish to say that I hope you continue to ponder these things and work out a solution. My prayers are with you. I will leave the subject now and allow you to make some concluding remarks if you wish.

    Thank you again.
    Thomas

    ReplyDelete
  6. Upon further reflection...I would like to make one final observation that puts all of this into a "nut-shell," as they say.

    At first glance, I don't really mind your definition of death. It makes sense that "death" could mean to "cease to exist." Certainly the Old Testament suggests this meaning even more than the New. I can see where you arrive at that conclusion depending on how you interpret certain passages. It could go either way.
    Where you loose me is when Jesus enters the picture. If Jesus is God and He suffered death...I mean, He truly suffered death, and it was not just a farce or a pseudo-death...then your definition of death means that the Son of God ceased to exist for three days. That is heresy, plain and simple. God is unchangeable; He is eternal. One person of the Trinity cannot simply fade away and then re-appear. He would cease to be God and the Godhead would mutate.
    I have to reject your Adventist doctrine because it is un-Christian. It attacks the core doctrine of the Trinity and the divinity of Christ.
    Now I am not saying that anything I counter-proposed in this discussion is necessarily true. Catholics are free to theorize about what happens precisely when we die. As long as we do not challenge doctrines that ARE established (such as the Trinity or Christ's divinity, or other such dogmas of the faith) then we can have our private opinions on the matter.
    I'm not saying that you have to accept my opinion on the subject. But I must reject yours as being incompatible with Christian teaching. It seems that your original post was leading in that direction as well. It seems that you too see the problem inherent in the Adventist doctrine on death. You see that Christ's divinity is at stake here. Yet it seems you have not resolved this matter during our discussion. I hope and pray you come to some better understanding.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'll answer briefly as it seems we've reached the ends of this particular topic, though I'm sure the next one will be as enjoyable.

    When Eccl 12 says eternal home, it seems to be the same as when Paul says he'd prefer to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. As we've mentioned before, for the one who dies there is no awareness of the passage of time. It seems as the blink of an eye from their last breath until they wake up in the resurrection and go to their eternal home.

    The phrase "under the sun" used here by Solomon is an idiom meaning on this temporal world. Even if taken literally, the Bible says God is creating a new heavens and a new earth, so we'll be under a new sun. :-)

    "I offer another alternative. We could see this as a pre-Christian understanding of death."

    This is a road I cannot go down, as I have faith that the Bible is God's word, and as such is an infallible authority. If Solomon was wrong about his view of death, then his writing was not inspired.

    "I don’t know about you, but I am a New Testament Christian, not an Old Testament Jew."

    This is also a road I cannot go down, for I hold that all of the Bible is God's infallible word. I must have faith and trust in the entirety of Scripture. Remember, when Paul and Peter speak of the inspiration and usefulness of Scripture, they only had the Old Testament. Although Peter also refers to Paul's writings as Scripture.

    I believe that the mount of transfiguration was a literal event as well. In 2 Kings the Bible says that Elijah was taken to heaven without seeing death. In Jude there is a cryptic passage indicating that Moses was resurrected. Jewish tradition also holds that Moses was resurrected. The Bible tells of one other person was was taken to heaven, or translated, without seeing death: Enoch.

    Yes, like you said, I do believe that Christ paid our penalty in full by dying what the Bible calls "the second death," which is the wages of sin. Thus He redeemed us.

    Some things about the nature of God we cannot, and may never, understand. If we could explain an infinite God, He'd be pretty small.

    Remember:

    Deut 29:29, "The secret things belong to the LORD our God, but those things which are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."

    Until we speak again,
    God bless.

    royalblood,

    Thank you for stopping by and commenting. You got right to the heart of the matter, good Scriptures!

    In my comment just before yours, I used around 20 Bible texts. :-)

    I'm really glad you left a comment and I hope to hear from you again!

    God bless.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I hate to go on so long, but I do wish to clarify something…

    I too believe that the whole Bible is inspired by God and contains His Word. The Old Testament is true, just as the New Testament is true.

    My point about “Old Testament Jews” versus “New Testament Christians” is this: Before Jesus came (before there was a New Testament) there were competing views among the Jews as to what “death” would bring. Some believed in resurrection others did not. And within each of those camps, there were competing interpretations of the same Biblical passages. They read the Old Testament (alone, without the New) and believed in it as God’s Word, just as you and I do, but they came to very different understandings. There was no New Testament yet to fulfill the Old. Then along came Jesus and He shed light on the meaning of the Old Testament. The New Testament is our written record of what Jesus came to preach. It helps us to understand the Old Testament.

    When I say that I am a “New Testament Christian” as opposed to an “Old Testament Jew” I am NOT saying that I reject the Old Testament. I am saying that I read the Old Testament in light of the New. The Jews did not have the New Testament; they did not believe that God came down as a man; so they did not interpret the same as we do. Their interpretations are sometimes starkly different from ours.

    The reason I caution you in your interpretation of “death” is that you seem to read the Old Testament passages as though the Son of God never came down to earth. You say that death means “total annihilation,” to “cease to exist,” which would be fine from an Old Testament perspective without the God-made-man. But in light of Jesus’ death, we need to examine “death” in a new light. Your interpretation may be OK for a Jewish view of the Old Testament, but as a Christian I must reject it. The New Testament tells me that Jesus is God and therefore could not cease to exist.

    So you see, it is not a matter of rejecting the Old Testament, it is a matter of rejecting your interpretation of the Old Testament as un-Christian, as failing to take into account the New Testament message of the divinity of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ...And thank you again for your time. You have been most gracious.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes I had no doubt you believed that both the Old and the New Testaments were true. I was merely pointing out that if we begin saying that perhaps portions of the Old Testament were representatives of a "pre-Christian" view, they would now be wrong if looked at from a Christian point of view. It was the comment you made,

    "We could see this as a pre-Christian understanding of death."

    That I cannot agree with, for it puts us on a very slippery slope. We now have to interpret which parts of the Old Testament reflected a "Pre-Christian understanding" and which are still correct today.

    "you seem to read the Old Testament passages as though the Son of God never came down to earth."

    This is just the point at which we differ. I don't believe that anything can tarnish the divinity of Christ, but you believe the Old Testament view of death would threaten Christ's divinity.

    I suppose after all our digging we've come to understand the basic reasons for the difference between Adventist and Catholic views of death. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. The full context of what I said is this…

    To start with, you had said that no one has ever satisfactorily explained how these Old Testament verses you cited can mean anything but “death” =equals= “cease to exist.”
    And I replied….

    “I will do my best to answer… Before Christ, the Jews had many competing ideas about death. Many rejected the resurrection of the dead, for instance. This verse you cite, and the others like it, from the Old Testament, not only seem to support your doctrine it also seems to suggest that the resurrection will never happen…“NEVERMORE will they have a share in anything done under the sun.” How far do you want to take your interpretation? Will you side with some of the Jews and say that we will NEVER be raise again? If you take these things in their absolute literal sense then the dead will NEVER, EVER rise again.
    “I offer another alternative. We could see this as a pre-Christian understanding of death. We could see Christ’s death as a shattering of this former fate for the dead. (The same can be said for your other Old Testament verses.) Jesus changed our experience of death. That is how He defeated it.”

    >>>

    So it is the problem of “interpretation” that I am directly addressing here. I am not suggesting that the Bible erred, but that our experience has changed, our understanding of death has been since God became one of us and died. Christ’s death requires that we re-interpret these passages, and not from a Jewish (pre-Christian) perspective.

    If that means that we examine the possibility of Jewish cultural influence on the text’s language then I am open to that prospect. It would certainly not be outside the realm of possibility. That is a part of interpretation. It does not mean that God lied in Scripture or that the Word of God has errors. It means we need to come to a deeper understanding of the message that is presented to us in the Bible.

    The Bible needs to be interpreted. It is not meant as a literal word-for-word utterance from God’s mouth. Men wrote because they were inspired by God, but that does not mean that God literally DICTATED, verbatim what they should say. (For example there is at least one passage where Paul says, “I, Paul, not the Lord, tell you ‘such and such’…” (1Corinthians 7:12) This shows that the writers of Scripture could insert their own personalities into the texts. Paul says that he, Paul, was giving instruction, not the Lord. And yet we include this verse in the "Word of God.")

    So, one must allow that many of the human words of Scripture leave room for interpretation to arrive at the Divine Word that they contain. You yourself admit that some verses should not be taken literally. You admit that you have assumed certain things about specific texts (such as the Assumption of Moses and Elijah) that are not necessarily spelled out literally in the Bible. You have interpreted these meanings because they go toward supporting your doctrine. Are you allowing your doctrine to misshape God’s Word? Is that not a slippery slope as well?

    So who decides which passages are literal? And who decides which passages must allude to extra-biblical data (like Moses’ Assumption – or Mary’s for that matter), and then who fills in those blanks and completes the picture? When does it cease to be “interpretation” and becomes instead us imposing a meaning on the text that is from our own bias and not the true meaning of God’s Word? The process of interpretation can certainly be a “slippery slope.”

    Now one possible view of these Old Testament passages is that they really do describe death as the cessation of existence. Perhaps you are correct in reading them thus. Let’s say that that is EXACTLY what happened BEFORE Jesus died. Before Christ came, people died and were unconscious. (Some would call this “limbo.”) But when Jesus came He broke this cycle of death’s destructive force. This is kind of what I was referring to when I said that “We could see Christ’s death as a shattering of this former fate for the dead.”

    This would mean that the Old Testament was exactly right at the time it was written. During that time before Jesus, the dead ceased to be conscious. But when Jesus came “death” changed. Jesus defeated it and transformed it. The Old Law was not WRONG it was simply fulfilled in Christ and death lost its sting. The New Law brought a new experience of death.

    I am not questioning God’s Word I am questioning whether you or the Adventist Church have the authority to interpret correctly. And judging by the tremendous error that is created concerning Christ's divinity, I must conclude that Adventism has it wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I believe the Old Testament wasn't just "right when it was written", but will always be right.

    I believe this because God does not change, He is the same yesterday, today and forever.

    I also believe that no church has the authority to interpret God's word. Not the Adventist church and certainly not the Catholic church. Jesus promised that the Spirit would lead us into all truth, and bring to remembrance those things which He spoke.

    Interpretation, as with salvation and forgiveness of sins, is done by God, and not a church.

    We still come to the same irresolvable issue...will we listen to God or man? Will we listen to the Scriptures or a church's interpretation of them?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Thomas said,
    "I am not questioning God’s Word I am questioning whether you or the Adventist Church have the authority to interpret correctly.

    This is the other element of Catholocism that causes discussions to be apples and oranges to some degree.

    Protestants, are not concerned about "apostolic succession" and who has the "authority" to interpit scripture.
    Tradition, a factor the Catholic church places above scripture, is something protestants know has no place in the equation.
    Many would find the concept more favorable if all Popes where known to be, what we would all percieve to be, "worthy" of their office.
    Since that is not the case, why is apostolic succession so important to Catholics?

    ReplyDelete
  14. I only ask because if a person had the "authority" to interpit scripture, wouldnt that presuppose that they would also be correct in its interpitation? Otherwise who cares if they have the authority or not if they are wrong, right?
    I'm not intending to bring up uncomfortable things. I am looking for the reasoning behind the statement Thomas made in light of things like the crusades, the inquisition, etc.
    Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  15. I have purposely stopped commenting on this post because we have gone as far as I think we can on the issue at hand. If anyone would like to discuss Catholic doctrine or papal authority or any other Catholic issue...please visit my blog and contact me, or Todd can start a discussion here if he chooses.
    The questions that Michael asks are very good questions, they are well put and they deserve answers. I would point out that Michael has mis-stated certain Catholic beliefs (such as, Catholic do NOT place Tradition ABOVE Scripture - the two are equal - or rather, they are the same thing in different forms, you might say). It would take me a long time and many posts to answer these questions thoroughly and to straighten out any misconceptions. I would rather not use Todd's blog as a my own soap-box so I will refrain. But if you are truly curious about these things please do see my blog and ask anything that comes to mind.
    Thomas

    ReplyDelete
  16. Good comments and questions, Michael.

    Thomas, I feel the same way. And by all means, if you'd like to respond to Michael's inquiry, I don't mind at all. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Todd, I appreciate your offer to respond to Michael. I will just say that the Catholic understanding of Scripture and Tradition is often misunderstood by non-Catholics (and even by some Catholics), and is construed to mean that Catholics believe Tradition has some kind of power OVER Scripture. This is simply NOT the case. Scripture and Tradition are equal in authority, for they come from the same source. And they work toward the same end - understanding God's Word.

    Think of Tradition as a body of beliefs that hold the key to interpreting Scripture. If we take for instance the belief in the Real Presence of Christ's Body and Blood in the Eucharist...this belief is found in both Scripture and Tradition. Now if we reject Tradition, then passages such as the last half of John 6, where Jesus describes His flesh as true food, could be merely symbolic. That's the way Protestants interpret that passage. It seems a reasonable possibility. But in light of the Church's Tradition regarding the Eucharist, Catholics maintain that it should be read as a Real and True presence of Christ's flesh under the appearance of bread. Working with Scripture and Tradition together, the meaning becomes unquestionable. If you reject Tradition then that verse can mean whatever you want it to mean about the bread and wine. (And sure enough, there are MANY theories within non-Catholic Christianity explaining this verse.)

    Take another verse, for example. A more difficult one. In Revelation 12, the woman who has a crown of twelve stars and the moon at her feet. She gives birth to a male child. This can have many layers of meaning. One interpretation Catholics hold dear is that it refers to Mary. The connection is obvious. To support this interpretation, we can see that the Tradition regarding Mary's Assumption could nicely explain the special "place" that the woman was removed to after the birth. And the crown she wears symbolizes her status as "Queen of Heaven". But again, if you reject Tradition then you can freely reject the Catholic interpretation. And of course the Book of Revelation is full of passages that non-Catholics have run wild with, once they separate themselves from the Tradition of the Church.

    The big problem I have when non-Catholics reject this idea of ancient Apostolic Tradition is that the end result is always a plethora of competing interpretations that contradict one another, and so you have thousands of different denominations that all claim to use the "Bible Alone" and yet the "Spirit" has led them all in different directions. That doesn't seem like the way the Spirit would work, to lead us to Truth.

    On the flip side, you have ONE Church that follows Scripture and Tradition together and our doctrine has remained intact.

    I have much more to say on my blog, so I will stop there. Obviously this would require a study of the ancient Church to see what the early Christians taught and to discover whether they were Adventist or Baptists or Methodists or, (who knows,) maybe Catholics, in their belief. If you find our what they believed in the first few centuries, and you study how they interpreted these passages, then you will come to a better understanding of what is meant by Catholic Tradition.

    I invite anyone who wishes to follow along to visit my blog and join the discussion. I will be posting a piece on the Church's teaching authority some time after Easter.

    Thanks again Todd,
    Thomas

    ReplyDelete
  18. It is interesting that you use the assumption of Mary as a proof of traditions place in regards to scripture.

    I just happened to be studying that and it wasnt in fallibly interpited by any Pope that way in the entire history of the church until the doctrine was dogmatically and infallibly defined by Pope Pius XII on November 1, 1950, in his Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus.

    The first mention of the concept was in the 4th century. The story is embellished and added to over time. A hundred years later the The Transitus Mariae tells the story of the apostles being transported by white clouds to the deathbed of Mary, each from the town where he was preaching at the hour.
    By the 7th century another variation was added, according to which one of the apostles, often identified as Thomas, was not present at the death of Mary, but his late arrival precipitates a reopening of Mary's tomb, which is found to be empty except for her grave clothes. In a still later tradition, Mary drops her girdle down to the apostle from heaven as testament to the event. This incident is depicted in many later paintings of the Assumption.

    The Roman Catholic Church has not claimed that this doctrine is founded on the apocryphal accounts as having any authority, nor that the church bases its teaching about the Assumption on them, but rather on the historic teaching of the Church down the centuries, the scholastic arguments in favor of it, and its biblical foundations.

    So, rather than tradition being equal to scripture, here you have an infallible doctrine made from completely extrabiblical sources and accounts, save the Woman with stars in revelation story. However Pope Pius XII never mentions that one. INstaed refering to John 14:3, 1Cor. 15, Genisis 3:15 and Psalms 8:6.
    The pope also mentions (in paragraph 26) Psalms 132, a liturgical psalm commemorating the return of the Ark of God to Jerusalem and lamenting its subsequent loss. The second half of the psalm says that the loss will be recompensed in the New Covenant, and so it is hopefully prayed, "Arise, O Lord, into thy resting place: thou and the ark, which thou hast sanctified" (v. 8). Since the Church sees this New Covenant ark in Mary, it understands that she was taken into Heaven in the same manner as the Lord – that is, body and soul.

    It seems more like a 6 degrees of seperation arguement where any unrelated thing can be linked if one makes quite large assumptions about what the text says.

    Overall an interesting study in Papal infallibility, the authority to interpit scripture and tradition in the RCC.



    It seems a far stretch to add to the Revelation account, all that has been added to the assumption of Mary story through the centuries. Especially when one of the measuring sticks for doing it was the "scholastic arguments" in favor of it.

    They dont know the date or year of the first manuscript that mentions it but they somehow know it happened on August 15. They dont know what year Mary was raised to Heaven.
    Roman Catholic theologian Ludwig Ott stated, "The idea of the bodily assumption of Mary is first expressed in certain transitus–narratives of the fifth and sixth centuries.... The first Church author to speak of the bodily ascension of Mary, in association with an apocryphal transitus B.M.V., is St. Gregory of Tours." The Roman Catholic writer Eamon Duffy goes further, conceding that "there is, clearly, no historical evidence whatever for it.". However, the Catholic Church has never asserted nor denied that its teaching is based on the apocryphal accounts. The Church documents are silent on this matter and instead rely upon other sources and arguments as the basis for the doctrine.
    In Ludwig Ott's Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma he states that "the fact of her death is almost generally accepted by the Fathers and Theologians, and is expressly affirmed in the Liturgy of the Church," to which he adduces a number of helpful citations, and concludes that "for Mary, death, in consequence of her freedom from original sin and from personal sin, was not a consequence of punishment of sin. However, it seems fitting that Mary's body, which was by nature mortal, should be, in conformity with that of her Divine Son, subject to the general law of death". The point of her bodily death has not been infallibly defined, and many believe that she did not die at all, but was assumed directly into Heaven. Indeed, the papal decree which infallibly proclaims the doctrine of the Assumption, the Apostolic Constitution Munificentissimus Deus, leaves open the question whether, in connection with her departure, Mary underwent bodily death; that is, it does not dogmatically define the point one way or the other, as shown by the words "having completed the course of her earthly life".

    So they know Mary went to heaven on August 15 but they have no idea what year or if she was translated or died and was resurrected and then translated.

    ReplyDelete
  19. You have really done your homework. Good job!
    Yes, the doctrine of Mary’s Assumption was not defined infallibly until 1950. Likewise, we might point out that the cannon of Scripture (the list of books of the Bible) was not defined until, at the earliest, the late 300’s. And Christ’s divinity took several centuries to work out in detail, with several official statements concerning His equality with the Father and the union of His divine nature with his human nature. Also the exact understanding of the doctrine of Christ’s presence in the Eucharist was debated for many centuries… All of these things took time. This is called “Development of Doctrine.” Which means that over time the Church comes to a clearer and clearer understanding of revealed Truth. I am quite aware of how Catholic doctrine has come down to us through the centuries in this manner. So I’m not really sure what you are trying to prove, if anything.

    I guess you are trying to show other Adventists who read this blog how Catholics “distort” God’s Word. But it is no different than how Ellen White came along and BAM!, all of a sudden you have the Seventh Day Adventist Church, a new denomination with new doctrines that was “invented by man” many centuries after Christ established His own Church. Or the way Martin Luther suddenly articulated Sola Scriptura, out of the blue, with little historical foundation for the doctrine. Or the way all of the Reformers and like-minded Christians have invented their new doctrines and new churches with no regard for what came before. The fact is there are many beliefs that you and other non-Catholics hold that I could likewise discredit for the same reason that you discredit the Assumption. (How about the Assumption of Moses and Elijah? …A few scattered verses in the Bible, bolstered by some apocryphal texts…That sounds like my argument for the Assumption of Mary. I think we’re in the same boat on this one.)

    The difference is that Catholics are at least honest when we admit that we believe in the historical process called Development of Doctrine. (Do you deny that your doctrine has developed over time?) Not all of Revelation is fully understood by all Christians in every age. This does not mean that Revelation is ADDED to, but rather our understanding of Revelation GROWS. And too, Catholics accept Tradition as the companion to Scripture (which further explains God’s Word) and the Church’s Majesterium has the authority to definitively settle matters of faith. None of which you accept. So we are coming from different understandings of Revelation.

    As for the 1950 infallible decree on Mary’s Assumption, it reads as follows: “By the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, of the Blessed Apostles Peter and Paul, and by our own authority, we pronounce, declare, and define it to be a divinely revealed dogma: that the Immaculate Mother of God, the ever Virgin Mary, having completed the course of her earthly life, was assumed body and soul into heavenly glory.” (These are the ONLY lines that are considered infallible. The rest is a brief explanation of how he arrived at the decision.)

    The infallible part of the decree makes no mention of any of the legends and myths that are told in the apocryphal writings to which you referred. These are NOT infallible sources, nor are they what I mean by TRADITION (that is, Tradition that is equal to Scripture). The belief in the Assumption as stated in the papal decree is minimal, and does not even settle the matter of whether Mary actually died. The pope only says, “having completed the course of her earthly life,” so the matter is left open as to whether she literally died, or what manner of death she underwent. The apocryphal stories you recounted are interesting and may give us insight into what Christians of different eras and locales believed, but they do not form an infallible record of the belief, they simply bear witness to a belief in various forms and local cultures. Likewise the Scholastics contributed their thoughts on the matter, but they are not infallible either. They simply add to the historical record.

    The pope has the authority to discern dogmatic Truth under certain limited circumstances, and the above statement I quoted was arrived at only after sifting through the various sources and prayerfully considering Scripture and Tradition. He only decreed a very limited statement and left much to be theorized by theologians. Catholics are only bound by the very brief statement I quoted. The rest is an interesting footnote.

    As to the passage from Revelation 12 to which I referred: Whether the pope specifically cited that verse in his decree is beside the point. His decree is not meant to be an exhaustive study on the matter. It is much too short for that purpose, and is not meant to include ALL references. But to make my point, I will refer you to the August 15 Liturgy for the Feast of the Assumption, which uses the passage in question as the first biblical reading at Mass. It was chosen for the reason I stated…the Church sees Mary’s Assumption reflected in this woman from Revelation. I have heard enough homilies, read enough literature, and studied enough theology to know that that verse has shades of meaning for Catholics that include the Assumption. Why else would it be specifically included at Mass for that Feast?

    As for the August 15 date of the Assumption, the Catholic Church does not claim to know the actual date of the Assumption. That is simply the date the Church chose to celebrate the feast. (I have read that it may have been the historic date of a church dedication in honor of Mary, and so it had significance for that reason.) But the Church makes no “official” claim to know the precise date. (Likewise Christmas is on December 25, but the Church does not infallibly decree THAT to be the LITERAL date of His birth either.)

    I would strongly suggest we limit ourselves to the topic we have chosen over at my blog, so that Todd can have his blog back, and so that we can zero in on one thing at a time. As it is, I will not have enough time to write what I need to answer your questions appropriately. (On that point, I hope to have something by the end of the week.)

    Thomas

    ReplyDelete