Andy Anderson on the "Overcomers"

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Tell that to Martin Luther when you see him. The entire protestant reformation was started over the matter of selling indulgences. Granted, that could be the straw that broke the camel's back, or it could be merely a symptom of the real disease, maybe it just made the best copy for the journalists and historians. You cannot refute this teaching if you don't know what happens when people die.

That is somewhat incorrect. I believe that you could refute them by showing that no one but yourself is responsible for your destiny. It cannot be bought by anyone, including yourself. And once you are dead, it is over.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

2nd, again you didn't read the posts. Jesus told Nicodemus that to be a teacher in Israel you have to know, at the very least the things of this earth, but the top standard is Jesus who also knows the things of heaven. Being able to explain these things is a testimony that Jesus is Lord and that He has ascended into heaven and descended from heaven.

This fails the context test. I think that you will find that this cannot be construed as requiring that we figure every thing out that we could possibly set our minds to.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

3rd, Paul said 1Cor 15:35 "But some man will say, How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" Now these are those who deny the resurrection. You cannot preach the gospel if you cannot handle these challenges. It is not just about you and your walk, it is about helping new ones with any and all concerns they have.

Not compelling. Since the people of Corinth did not actually see Jesus, before or after resurrection, look at the account given and tell me that you know exactly what it is that Paul has described.

But more importantly, does Paul answer because it was important to know, or to deal with funny teachings coming from others (some that you might be labeling as "false teachers" in the other thread). I read the account Paul gives and know that it is not simply physical. It is spiritual. But not simply spiritual. It was touchable.

And when Paul was done, he probably hoped that they could get back to living this life.

In any case, the fact that there is a small bit on it does not mean that we have a need to figure it out beyond what was recorded.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

So let's see, this was important to Martin Luther, Jesus and Paul. But not important to OBW. Who to listen to?

And the answer is that you have misrepresented what I am saying. My point is that going into deeper details than what is simply recorded in scripture does not have any impact on your present life (unless realizing that there is a future life causes you to rethink).

But the present life is the only thing that will impact your future life. And that only the realm of "in" or "out" and, if in, in the realm of "reward." The body you get is the body you get. Knowing about it in details beyond what is told fairly simply and in few words is, at best, speculative. In other words, it is not actually knowing. It is just guessing. And if you are right or wrong will not affect whether or not it is your experience at that time.

What do you achieve beyond claiming some knowledge that is, at best, tenuous? And what benefit is it with respect to the Kingdom? Worrying about my body after the resurrection is a waste of my time. It will be what it will be. And the little we are told would appear to be enough as far as God was/is concerned.

Your mocking question is not actually asked by any of those people. They do not conclude that you need to go beyond what is recorded.

Jesus did not say that we should know everything. He didn't even say that the teachers of the law should know everything. But he did suggest that the point he was making in John 3 should have been understood, or at least something on his radar to think about. At least for the teachers.

Martin Luther did not need to know where we go when we die to conclude that faith is the only thing that saves us. And that once dead, there is no more opportunity for faith. The parable of the rich man and Lazarus should have settled that.

Paul set out to deal with some claiming there is no resurrection. And going along with that was a question about what kind of body we would get assuming there is a resurrection. Paul's answer was that it is not simply a reconstituted physical body. It is also spiritual. Like the one Jesus got. And that seemed to be enough. Got them over their problems.

So which one of these needed to explain the difference in paradise and heaven? And if we "get to be with Jesus" upon death, as you mentioned in a prior post, and He is said to be in "heaven," then do we not "go to heaven"? What else do we need?

But the real question that I keep asking and you have not answered is this: If you are right/wrong, what does it do to your theology? To your salvation? To your eternal destiny? The only thing affected will be your theology. And right theology is not required. Just being right with God. That will dictate everything.

And don't you dare come back and say that just because I said getting theology right is not the important thing that I am saying that it really doesn't matter what you believe. I shouldn't have to say that, but the little question about Martin Luther, Jesus, and Paul would suggest that I need to. When I speak of theology in this post, I am referring to the many things which are not the core of the faith. Things that do not decide whether one is a believer in Christ or just in some good teachings. Many believers in Christ do not buy into dispensational theology. That does not affect their destiny. Some baptize by sprinkling. It does not reduce their salvation. There may be a right and a wrong, but getting it right is not central to the Kingdom life.

And there are a bunch of theoretical theologians somewhere that have wondered how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Deep stuff. There might be enough information in the scriptures to at least postulate an answer. But it is completely off the reservation to think about it. The question(s) about what happens after our death is(are) not totally irrelevant. But the important things are broad and are covered fairly clearly. More details than are given becomes speculative, at best. At some point, the best answer is to say "it doesn't matter. It is distracting us from what does matter." You don't "get ready" for His return by studying the difference in heaven and paradise or filling in more details on our resurrected body. ("Will be able to fly? To just be wherever we want?" Does it really matter? Is that more important that what is actually recorded in the scripture?)

You may not like it, but to me, the level to which the search for details not provided is in the "it doesn't matter" category. And it does not fly in the face of what Jesus said to Nicodemus, or Paul said to the Corinthians. How Martin Luther went about trying to argue against indulgences is really not important. Funny thing is that it was never decided. The discussion did not happen. He was simply rejected by Rome and taken under the wings of the German government. Politics was the decider. The issue was not discussed. Salvation by faith was.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

You may not like it, but to me, the level to which the search for details not provided is in the "it doesn't matter" category. And it does not fly in the face of what Jesus said to Nicodemus, or Paul said to the Corinthians.

OBW,

I know you are not addressing my points, so I may be off the mark by addressing yours as if they pertain to mine. But I shall, anyway.

My quibble with the Nee/Lee school is because I like it. I like how they stressed responsibility, reward, and warning of loss to the believers. There seems to be at least some biblical ground for making those points, and saying that they fit alongside eternal life, as we understand it (I know Lee made a straw man out of "christianity" and acted as if they didn't discuss christian responsibility, when actually they do. Still, the subject remains valid).

The subject is important, even if some of it is covered scantily in the Bible and subsequent Christian writings. If I ask, "What does it mean to owe 100 measures of wheat, versus 50?", from the parable in Luke 16, I am not "off the reservation". What does "many stripes" mean versus "few stripes" mean in Luke 12? If Jesus taught on it, I am not beyond bounds at least considering it.

But our dilemma is that with this topic, you have to piece together a composite picture. Therefore I think that any treatment should be scholarly (broad, careful, reasoned) and very tentative. We should do a lot of thinking and have little confidence. Lee, on the other hand, did little scholarship and had lots of confidence. So we got taken in by his "confidence game" (pun intended). Lee said "This means that" and that was that.

I think what happens today and what happens after we die are connected. That was part of the message of Jesus, and of those who followed him. And death is a big deal, even to the unbelievers. But "what happens after we die" is at best, very vague, from our perspective. So we should be somewhat modest about making any bold assertions. Love one another, treat each other with respect, try to live properly, believe in Jesus. And carefully and humbly consider what Jesus' parables might have meant to those who listened to Him. I don't think we have exhausted the subject. And I do think it bears on our daily living.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by aron

I know you are not addressing my points, so I may be off the mark by addressing yours as if they pertain to mine. But I shall, anyway.

There is something to be said for considering what is reward and what is (or might be) punishment for those who are actually "in."

The thing is that we don't need paradise or heaven defined to deal with them.

And at the same time, we aren't even sure how to read some of them no matter when any alleged punishment might happen.

And if we want to discuss "when," I'm not sure that it is specifically defined. Maybe it actually happens after death and before the resurrection. (That would coincide with the Catholic purgatory without taking on all of their baggage.) Or maybe it is during the 1,000 years (assuming that this is actual and not metaphorical — not saying, just noting some uncertainty).

There is a reference to outer darkness and to weeping and gnashing of teeth. We like to read that parable as clearly talking about the saved (because of the word "servant"). But there were 12 disciples and one of them was taken over by Satan and betrayed Jesus. Yes, that was before salvation as we know it. . . . Or was it? Are we entirely sure that we know what it all means?

What about salvation. Grace? No works? Then what about "working out your salvation?

These are at least somewhat important. They deal with your life and your after-life. But the difference between heaven and paradise does not really deal with meaningful issues for this life. It is angels on a pin. There may be an answer. But knowing it gives no brownie points and doesn't help anyone be closer to God.

I cannot say that I buy Lee's version of some of those parables. At least not entirely. But I have never heard anyone deal with them in a way that is completely cohesive.

But, having said that, I understand what the thrust of them is. It is to be righteous, watching, etc., now in this life. I don't need to understand little dark rooms or summer school to figure that out.

Sometimes a warning is just that — a warning. It needs no dissection. trying to pick your way through the minutia to arrive at the entire knowledge of it seems like trying to figure out what you can get away with and still meet the criteria. (Not saying you are doing this.) But if your goal is to follow, then it would seem that being warned is sufficient. I don't want weeping and gnashing of teeth. I prefer to leave the details of what that really means undiscovered. Forever.

That was the message. "Don't go there." "Avoid that!" "Do what the master commands." (Oddly despising works is contrary to what the master commands.) The message is not to figure out how there is some literal outer darkness where you will weep and gnash your teeth — and get all of its details correct.

So, to the extent that we take these words and heed the warning, we are wise. To the extent that we try to build a novel out of a couple of paragraphs, it won't hurt us (probably not) but neither will it help us. But it might take our eyes off of the goal of obedience that was the command to be followed.

You don't need to respond. I think we are essentially on the same page.

[aron]

In Acts 24:25 Paul was lecturing the governor Felix on righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come. Felix became nervous and said, "Okay, Paul, that's enough for now!"

What a gospel that Paul preached... may we all be blessed with such hearts, lips and tongues!

What I love about the Bible is that it often gives us such bare sketches: here Paul is presenting Felix with "the judgment to come", but we get no details. Yet we see its effect on the governor. Felix was supposed to be judging Paul, yet when God though Paul's words began to judge Felix, he was clearly affected.

So I agree with the point of OBW that the details in and of themselves are not requisite. For example, we don't see them in Acts 24:25, yet we see their power. May God's Word so touch our hearts.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

That is somewhat incorrect. I believe that you could refute them by showing that no one but yourself is responsible for your destiny. It cannot be bought by anyone, including yourself. And once you are dead, it is over.

Whoa! Where did you get this? What about "reincarnation"? How can you tell people that "once you are dead, it is over" without teaching about what happens when you die? You just destroyed your entire argument.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

How can you tell people that "once you are dead, it is over" without teaching about what happens when you die? You just destroyed your entire argument.

"It's over", to me, referenced a composite picture composed of numerous biblical images. You have the idea of the door shut for the wedding feast, with some unable to enter. As I said before, a miss is as good as a mile. It's over.

You had the image of the ark. Inside is safe. Outside, it's over. Also the image of Sodom and Gomorrah. Every thing is hunky-dory until one day it starts raining fire. Game over.

Esau, though he wept with many tears, was not able to reclaim the birthright. It was gone -- it had passed through his hands and wasn't coming back. The rebellious angels, kept in chains, waiting for the judgment of the last day. The rich man, unable to get a drop of water from Lazarus, who was separated by an unbridgeable chasm.

There are arguably no "details" here, just a general, but consistent and clear theme. God is patient, but once God says it's over, it's over.

[MacDuff]

ZNPaaneah

The word paradise is only found three times in the New Testament. And in none of those three times is the word defined or said to be the same as something else.

Then how does he know we don't go to purgatory? How does he know we shouldn't pay the indulgences?

How indeed? Since the Bible doesn’t say anything at all about purgatory. It’s a RCC doctrine based on other doctrines. The Bible sources that Lee used for his own version of purgatory refer to hell in the RCC. Same with indulgences, which the RCC defines today differently than in the 16th century, in that it is a Spiritual matter, not a physical one. But they still believe that the idea of indulgences is valid, which Protestants do not. Because some of the doctrines behind the idea of indulgences isn’t believed by Protestants either.

Not being a Protestant, I would say that Luther’s idea of Sola Scriptura and Sola Fides are based on personal interpretation more than on the Bible itself. But then, that’s just a personal opinion, and the opinion of the RCC, the largest of the denominations, and of Eastern Orthodoxy, which is no small denomination, though it seems so in America where it is a minority denomination.

I realize that Protestants get themselves in a quandary about the smallest matters as they try to define every detail of “the Faith” via Biblical interpretation. A natural result of thinking that the Bible is more in its own right than it really is. And many Protestant denominations are created because of disagreements about matters that aren’t very important. Whether or not to use musical instruments or a particular musical instrument in meetings, for example.

The maxim that those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it is apropos here. The idea of reincarnation isn’t a Christian idea. Never has been. Nevertheless, there are Christians who believe in it today and can quote you Bible verses that substantiates the belief in their own mind. And some of them are Catholics, who you would think would know better.

The point OBW is trying to make, I think, is a concern that the next thing you may question is how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. There are many things we should be concerned about without trying to get into things that may be of no concern to us as an explicit explanation in our present life. And like OBW, I think that trying to explicitly define paradise and some of the other Biblical references to the future life may be in that realm. Better minds than those of us on this forum have tried to define such things and they disagree. Why should we think we are any better?

The RCC has defined some of these things. And even they don’t spend a whole lot of time on such matters according to their most recent Catechism, and other Catholic writings. They just say this is what the Church has thought for centuries and go on with more important things like the Mass and prayer and their importance as experiences of God today. Some Catholics may emphasize such things as appearances of Mary over the last couple centuries. The RCC itself does not. But that doesn’t bother those Catholics who emphasize such things.

A summary, for those who prefer short posts. There are important matters and not so important matters. And I think OBW is trying to steer us back to the more important matters. Such as, what does the term overcomer mean and what does it mean to us today?

MacDuff

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by MacDuff

ZNPaaneah
The point OBW is trying to make, I think, is a concern that the next thing you may question is how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. There are many things we should be concerned about without trying to get into things that may be of no concern to us as an explicit explanation in our present life.

I understand. My point is the discussion fit within the "mission" of this forum, it fits within the thread, and if OBW is not interested don't post. I am interested and am not about to have OBW or anyone else tell me what I should or shouldn't be interested in. There have been at least 3 times as many words posted saying "don't talk about this" as those that are talking about it.

[MacDuff]

ZNPaaneah

I feel your pain. Igzy said the same thing about what little I was interested in on this forum. But you have to admit that, unless you believe that overcoming refers to the next life, the after life has little to do with overcoming. But then, maybe we should leave that to Aron who started this thread. And he's as much a part of this conversation on the after life as any.

Sorry. I won't mention it again. Nor be a part of this conversation, seeing as I have no personal interest in the after life. Not yet, not yet being there. Being 72 years, it won't be long I think. And I think I already said that to me, all that matters is that we're with Jesus, whether in this life or the next. Whether or not we're in Christ in this life determines where we'll be in the next. And at the moment, I have enough to concern me in this life.

Thanks for your response. It should be considered sufficient for both OBW and myself, and any others who questioned your emphasis on the matter.

MacDuff

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Whoa! Where did you get this? What about "reincarnation"? How can you tell people that "once you are dead, it is over" without teaching about what happens when you die? You just destroyed your entire argument.

You don't have to have the details of what happens after death to refute reincarnation. "It is appointed unto man once to die; after that the judgment." (somewhat paraphrased) The problem is that verses do not prove anything to someone who does not believe. And if someone thinks they believe in Christ and the scripture, that one verse should set them straight if they thought otherwise. If not, I'm not sure what to say.

But, if they think they might come back to life to live here on this earth and get another crack at it all, what does that do to their salvation?

Once again, you throw out a somewhat extreme example and assert that you need to be able to teach them about what happens when they die. It seems that the only clear word is that you die, then face judgment (one way or the other). Much of any "teaching" on other things in between is sort of speculative.

The need is for belief in Christ and his gospel. It is not for theological analysis of what happens after death beyond what is clearly stated. And, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4, don't go beyond what is written. Let the words of scripture speak for themselves. They do not need embellishment or improvement to deal with those who believe in reincarnation. They just need to get to the heart and mind of the person to believe in and follow Christ.

I'm not saying that there is no value in persuading a believer that still holds to reincarnation. But the value is not "life-changing" in the ultimate sense. It probably will help them toward sanctification now since now will probably become more important.

But scavenging the little actually written about what is after death and before the New Jerusalem (or at least the rapture) to build a more robust teaching on the subject does not appear to be important. It surely did not rise to the level of a teaching for Jesus. Or even for Paul. Referring to 1 Corinthians 15 only asserts that there is a resurrection. And it gives a fleeting hint at the nature of the new body we will receive then. But it says nothing about between now and then (after death).

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

You don't have to have the details of what happens after death to refute reincarnation. "It is appointed unto man once to die; after that the judgment." (somewhat paraphrased) The problem is that verses do not prove anything to someone who does not believe. And if someone thinks they believe in Christ and the scripture, that one verse should set them straight if they thought otherwise. If not, I'm not sure what to say.

Once again, you throw out a somewhat extreme example and assert that you need to be able to teach them about what happens when they die. It seems that the only clear word is that you die, then face judgment (one way or the other). Much of any "teaching" on other things in between is sort of speculative.

Why is 1 verse in Hebrews more clear than the verse in Phil where Paul says that when he dies he will be with Christ? Why is that one verse more clear than what the Lord says to Nicodemus that his knows about the things of earth and the heaven? Or the verses describing where Jesus went after being crucified? Or the verse where Jesus says He hasn't ascended to the father yet? Or the verses Jesus shared about Lazarus in the bosom of Abraham? Or the verse where Jesus told the thief he would be with him that day in Paradise? Of the verse that says "the dead in Christ will rise first".

Who makes you the arbiter of which verses are clear and which aren't, and which are worth being interested in and which aren't?

[OBW]

I'll respond to just this one and you might understand me better and be able to presume how I think concerning the others.

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Why is 1 verse in Hebrews more clear than the verse in Phil where Paul says that when he dies he will be with Christ?

Because, whether we are immediately brought into the presence of Christ, or, at another extreme, we are unaware of anything until the resurrection, our realization is that we are "with Christ." The verse does not explain.

And, even if I remain aware after death, and am actually, like the story of the rich man and Lazarus, in "Abraham's bosom" so to speak, my destiny is secure and I can say that I am with Christ because the suffering of life is over and "it is finished."

I don't really like this analogy (for obvious reasons that you will see when you read on). But if I got great tickets to a sporting event or primo concert and then later came to realize that there are now 3,000 people standing in line to get the remaining 1,000 tickets, I can say that I am "in" while many of those cannot say that. But until the concert time actually arrives and they open the doors, no one is literally "in."

What Paul says may or may not be like that. "It is decided and final. I have confidence that it is simply so."

"In any case, I'm with you."

Remember. It is language. And in some cases, the precision of language is not in every possible outcome of what that means at the moment, but what it means in context and in intent.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'll respond to just this one and you might understand me better and be able to presume how I think concerning the others.
Because, whether we are immediately brought into the presence of Christ, or, at another extreme, we are unaware of anything until the resurrection, our realization is that we are "with Christ." The verse does not explain.

Then how do you explain Samuel being brought up from the dead to talk to Saul. He was aware of Saul's impending death and many other things.

How do you explain Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus on the Mount of transfiguration?

How do you explain the verses that says Jesus preached to those in Tartarus, they were aware of what was happening.

How do you explain the rich man being tormented asking to go talk to his brothers?

Where do you make this stuff up? Why do you teach beyond what is written in the Bible.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Then how do you explain Samuel being brought up from the dead to talk to Saul. He was aware of Saul's impending death and many other things.

How do you explain Moses and Elijah appearing with Jesus on the Mount of transfiguration?

How do you explain the verses that says Jesus preached to those in Tartarus, they were aware of what was happening.

How do you explain the rich man being tormented asking to go talk to his brothers?

Where do you make this stuff up? Why do you teach beyond what is written in the Bible.

Wrong question. That is the best answer to your question.

The issue with Samuel speaking to Saul was not how it came to be.

Talk about missing the point. You are majoring on the periphery. Does the scripture bother to tell you how it came to be? And precisely in what way Samuel had existed since death until that time? If not, then I suggest it was not the point of the passage. It is more of a distraction for those with ADHD.

"Squirrel!"

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

I'll respond to just this one and you might understand me better and be able to presume how I think concerning the others.
Because, whether we are immediately brought into the presence of Christ, or, at another extreme, we are unaware of anything until the resurrection, our realization is that we are "with Christ." The verse does not explain.

And, even if I remain aware after death, and am actually, like the story of the rich man and Lazarus, in "Abraham's bosom" so to speak, my destiny is secure and I can say that I am with Christ because the suffering of life is over and "it is finished."

I don't really like this analogy (for obvious reasons that you will see when you read on). But if I got great tickets to a sporting event or primo concert and then later came to realize that there are now 3,000 people standing in line to get the remaining 1,000 tickets, I can say that I am "in" while many of those cannot say that. But until the concert time actually arrives and they open the doors, no one is literally "in."

What Paul says may or may not be like that. "It is decided and final. I have confidence that it is simply so."

"In any case, I'm with you."

Remember. It is language. And in some cases, the precision of language is not in every possible outcome of what that means at the moment, but what it means in context and in intent.

Phil 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
More
1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

The context of these verses is that Paul might be martyred and this is his mindset. When he says "to die" the context is clearly a physical death. This is not allegorical. When he says he has a desire to "depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better" you cannot read that to mean that "the suffering of my life is over and his labor is finished" because in the next verse he makes it clear that it isn't finished, rather "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you".

The context and intent I think is very rich in detail. Like Stephen, if he is martyred he will be with Christ. (Perhaps he can even see Jesus standing.) He is quite excited at the prospect of being with Christ, but he knows his labor is not finished and he needs to remain for our sakes.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Phil 1:21 For to me to live is Christ, and to die is gain.
1:22 But if I live in the flesh, this is the fruit of my labour: yet what I shall choose I wot not.
1:23 For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:
More
1:24 Nevertheless to abide in the flesh is more needful for you.

The context of these verses is that Paul might be martyred and this is his mindset. When he says "to die" the context is clearly a physical death. This is not allegorical. When he says he has a desire to "depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better" you cannot read that to mean that "the suffering of my life is over and his labor is finished" because in the next verse he makes it clear that it isn't finished, rather "to abide in the flesh is more needful for you".

The context and intent I think is very rich in detail. Like Stephen, if he is martyred he will be with Christ. (Perhaps he can even see Jesus standing.) He is quite excited at the prospect of being with Christ, but he knows his labor is not finished and he needs to remain for our sakes.

I don't particularly have a quibble with anyone thinking in the way that you do as laid out in your response. But you provide it as if the verses you supply answers the question and makes your answer the answer.

Just like the examples about Samuel and the others, now adding Paul's comments about the possible end of his life soon, they do not speak to the nature of the "between" life (or time) — the time between death and resurrection — in a way that gives any clear understanding of what that involves. And the point of the passages is something other than that interim period.

And then your point-by-point dissection of my longer post. I will provide an overview assessment in this way. You missed the point. Even the way you responded to so many items shows that you are missing the point.

For example, I created a hypothetical statement by a "postmodern" person that said

You say Jesus changes lives? Show me one. Show me how you are changed.

You respond with

I did. I shared the testimony of the Buddhist that died and saw Jesus.

This just demonstrates to me that you did not actually read my post. I was not challenging anyone to give a testimony about how their life was changed, or provide some testimony from someone else. It was a comment on the excessive piling on of knowledge and claims about the unstated rather than focusing on the primary thrust of the whole of scripture, which is the gospel of Christ, belief in Him, and evidence that there is belief because it is seen in the changing of lives and the will to follow the one you claim to believe. One testimony of one Buddhist does not make a study into what happens after death "according to scripture" beyond what scripture clearly teaches important.

By the way. That post was not just for you. And even if it was, finding a testimony of someone who had some kind of vision as the result of whatever it is that we call "near death experiences" does not support the need for better understanding of what happens between death and the resurrection. It just proves that our God is real. However it came to be, whether a vision given in an extreme situation (nearly dying) or the partial opening of the veil that separates what is beyond the grave from what is on this side, it is proof of God. But it is not evidence of how this "between time" exists. If it is a vision, it could very well be a vision of what will be after the resurrection. How are we to know? And how are we to decide how to build a theology surrounding this?

And for what purpose? Being the first to do it?

Yes. We are joining here to discuss things somewhat theological. But we are far short of the kind of plurality required to consider anything we come up with as substantial. If we could submit it to others and they ultimately come to the same conclusion, that would be nice. But what does it do for us? Should we set out to make it a point of teaching?

I always have questions concerning some kinds of "afterlife" teachings. But most of what some Sunday School teacher is going to provide is little more than questionable terminology surrounding the little we actually know something about. We will be with Jesus. He is in heaven. The fact that heaven comes to the earth is not really something to gripe at them for not including in their discussion. They may be a little too enamored with their near-mythology about what it will be like.

But are we really doing much more than trying to pin down this near-mythology with better speculation? And for what purpose? What do we gain from it?

Lee thought that his over-analyzed, over-adjectivized version of scripture and its meaning relegated the rest of Christianity to the status of cattle in a field. We know better. But are we just beginning to chase after a different set of over-analyzed, over-nuanced theological constructs to replace those old ones with? We may not be as dogmatic about them as Lee and his followers have been. But where does it stop? When we realize that we forgot what is the primary core of the faith? When we remember that the command was to go and make followers and teach them to obey the commands, not go and teach minds to assent to better theology.

And, in this lifetime, there is no way to assert that whatever you come up with concerning pinning-down paradise v heaven v purgatory v Abraham's bosom is certain enough to hang any hats upon. And even if you actually think you can, it won't make a bit of difference to the current living of any of those Christ-followers besides thinking they know something better.

This is not the first topic like it. We no longer dissect the bad theology of Lee and the LRC. We dance around the bad acts (and they need to be trampled on) and try to pass judgment on every other Christian group that is still too much like the things that Lee said were bad.

Then we start trying to delve into things that the NT would seem to disagree with (disagree with us). Things like whether the whole idea of church leaders, elder, etc., was just something that Paul and others slipped into the account and it was an error. We despise the ground of dirt and then wonder how how so many groups exist in a single city, and try to figure out a different angle on making it all one. Or doing it "right" so that we can feel like our group has it right even if others don't. But we aren't going to get nasty about it like Lee. Just talk about it here.

Now we want a better-defined "between life."

Why? To what end?

I'm done with it. My objections are not to the actual accounts in the scripture or to suggest that the Buddhist did not have the vision he did and that his conversion is somehow false. My objections are to the chasing of more pins to put angels on. To yet one more truly irrelevant thing to capture our imaginations and thoughts while the important goes silent.

If this topic had been started by Bilbo, and was continually pushed as important to pursue by him, many would be screaming "troll" because the effect would be to drag-line a hook for an irrelevant topic and sucker as many as possible into it while the important topics go wanting. I'm not calling you or the others trolls. But in the grand scheme of things, whether an irrelevancy is being perpetrated by a troll or by someone else does not change the actual effect it has.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

The need is for belief in Christ and his gospel. It is not for theological analysis of what happens after death beyond what is clearly stated. And, as Paul said in 1 Corinthians 4, don't go beyond what is written. Let the words of scripture speak for themselves. They do not need embellishment or improvement to deal with those who believe in reincarnation. They just need to get to the heart and mind of the person to believe in and follow Christ.

Well it is commonly taught that if you believe in Christ you will be saved and if you don't you will go to hell.

Please reconcile this word by Peter with that "common" teaching

2 Peter
2:20 For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
2:21 For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.

If everyone who knows Jesus as Lord and Savior is saved, and everyone who doesn't is going to hell then how could it be better for someone to have never known Jesus and the way of righteousness?

How does anyone preach the gospel without reconciling this?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Well it is commonly taught that if you believe in Christ you will be saved and if you don't you will go to hell.

Did I somehow say something different from this?

Please tell me where I did. Anyone?

This has been my point. This is a simple statement. It is (arguably) right there in the scripture. (I say arguably because there are some that think it is not quite so clear. But so far they have not been persuasive.)

You don't need to understand where it is, precisely, that you go upon death and before the resurrection. You don't even need to understand the nature of the body you will receive upon resurrection. But if I have to say anything about it, I will stick to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. I will not try to read more into the limited things said than what was written.

I will not comment specifically on the other "what if" kind of things you bring up.

To All:

I will provide another post in a moment that will underscore my base. Where I am coming from. And if you really can't tolerate it after that, then I realize that there is a problem here that makes my participation nearly worthless.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Did I somehow say something different from this?

Please tell me where I did. Anyone?

This has been my point. This is a simple statement. It is (arguably) right there in the scripture. (I say arguably because there are some that think it is not quite so clear. But so far they have not been persuasive.)

You don't need to understand where it is, precisely, that you go upon death and before the resurrection. You don't even need to understand the nature of the body you will receive upon resurrection. But if I have to say anything about it, I will stick to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. I will not try to read more into the limited things said than what was written.

I will not comment specifically on the other "what if" kind of things you bring up.

To All:

I will provide another post in a moment that will underscore my base. Where I am coming from. And if you really can't tolerate it after that, then I realize that there is a problem here that makes my participation nearly worthless.

There is no verse anywhere in scripture that says everyone who does not believe in Jesus will go to hell.

The closest verse you can get is to say that the "unbelieving" will be cast into the Lake of fire. But, as you have been so vehemently arguing you cannot assume that this must be equivalent to something spoken in another book. Especially since within the same context of the consummation of all things in Revelation it says that "the nations will bring their glory into the New Jerusalem". And in several places it says that the believers will "rule and reign" over the nations.

There are too many verses in the New Testament that would cause you to question that, for example the verse I already gave you, 2Peter 2:20-21

If every non believer is cast into the lake of fire how could it be "better" for someone to have never believed than after having believed to turn back from the right way?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

But if I have to say anything about it, I will stick to what Paul said in 1 Corinthians 15. I will not try to read more into the limited things said than what was written.

That will be a nice change. Can you itemize what I have spoken that was more than what was written?

[OBW]

A few posts back, MacDuff probably said some of what I would say better than I would. I will not say that I agree with him on some of his positions. And I surely would not simply take the Catholic position over that of Protestantism.

Except in a few things. And those seem to be the things that are underpinning the nature of the recent arguments. I do not simply agree with the Catholics on these. But note that they are at least rational and consistent in how they approach and deal with scripture.

Sola Scriptura was developed in response to some decrees of the RCC that seemed to fly in the face of what scripture actually said. Since the RCC's position is that the church is the final arbiter of what scripture means, they think it is their prerogative.

They are wrong. But the idea that scripture simply speaks clearly is nothing short of ludicrous. If we are going to dump the church, and go to scripture alone, then it becomes me and my Bible. And we all get to say. And we simply don't agree. (And look where that has gotten us.)

While I have no desire to even consider a regular "diet" of Masses, rosaries, Hail Marys etc., the fighting among the Protestants is proof that what they think is important about in understanding scripture is mostly garbage.

And in the midst of the fighting, for many it is ending.

What I note in so many posts and positions is that we have virtually all been part of (or are still part of) a group that made such a big deal about being free from the law. But despite this, we view whatever our position is as so important that everyone else ought to agree with it. Even when we dump the LRC, we want to make rules about how leaders ought to be (and whether there should even be leaders) or we are degenerate.

We mostly don't say it that strongly, but we look down our noses at a denomination simply because it is a denomination. We despise a preacher because he is paid. We think that the fact that there is someone who is primary among leadership is problematic.

But does the record in Acts ever suggest such a problem? It is clear that Peter took the lead at a time. At another time, it was James. There is no indication in the written account that this was a problem.

I don't say that there are no problems anywhere. But the problems are the actual problems, not the ones layered on by implication of purist theology.

And this is my beef, of sorts. I have seemed to take on some pretty strong opinions on things lately. But how often have you paid attention to the position I take? How often is it like the latest one here on life-after-death? We are poised to develop a new and better theology about how to say it right (and without intention, start looking down our noses at those who don't do it that way or agree with it).

My position in this particular situation is that there is not really a position to take. We are so strong to try to figure it out — a la sola scriptura — and then apply our new-found theology as a yardstick to judge others.

I am not saying that there is no cause for getting things right. But the history from which we spring tends to push us to repeat the same errors that we now despise in Lee and the LRC. And that is thinking you got it right and judging everyone else for their error.

There is a place for getting it right. And that place is together. It is as the church. Not the Catholic church, or this denomination or that denomination. But as Christians willing to look beyond our petty preferences and search for truth together. I prefer immersion for baptism. Others sprinkling. I prefer believers baptism. Others take the words where whole households were baptized and do it on that basis of the household (and thus infant baptism). (BTW, do any of those groups believe, as a matter of teaching, that the infant is now saved?) But beyond these things that we differ upon, there is the core of the faith. And on this we agree. We may ultimately conclude that other positions are "right."

But we should always consider whether they are important. What does scripture actually say about it? Or is it just am implication?

And we should ask more questions than we answer. Even the scientific method of modernism finds answers by asking questions and seeking beyond what is known. Too often, our only question is where to find proof of what it is that we have already decided is true.

And when that is the exercise, then the postmodern position is far superior. Don't just tell me. Show me.

You say Jesus changes lives? Show me one. Shw me how you are changed.

You claim that Christ makes you one. demonstrate it. I will assure you that just because there are two different groups meeting in different ways across the street from each other, that alone will not be seen as disproof of oneness. The fact that they come out together to live the gospel in the community without discord is proof that they are.

I obviously love logic. And, at some level, I love theology. But I hate theology that does not have meaningful impact on people's lives today. That picks through what is wrong with other Christians and how to avoid them. I hate theology that is at the cost of loving one another. And since there will be more than one way to understand what happens between death and the resurrection, I am happy for those who have come to peace because of their version (as a result of sola scripture — me and my Bible). But I hate the creation of a "this is the answer" when it has no bearing on love for one another — rather puts one more bullet in the gun of discord.

I do not say this concerning the core of the person of Christ and the core of salvation. Only concerning the periphery. And of all the things mentioned in scripture in any way, shape or form, what happens between death and the resurrection is one of the more unspecified items there is. I cringe at the very act of trying to "figure it out," especially to go to such lengths to defend the need to do so.

I do not believe that the need exists. Scripture itself, in its silence, seems to agree.

Figure it out for yourself if you want. Like your conclusions. Don't think they are "right" and others are "wrong." If it comforts you to go this route, then so be it. But to rejoin with others to defend the importance of the topic is to require a specific result which is to add one more cause for lack of unity in the body. One more new Christian denomination or splinter group.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

My position in this particular situation is that there is not really a position to take. We are so strong to try to figure it out — a la sola scriptura — and then apply our new-found theology as a yardstick to judge others.

I don't think anyone in this thread has really disagreed. While in the LRC we seemed sure we knew what happened, but I think the verses we have looked at have made a very strong case that at the very least the LRC position is not a strong one and, actually may be an erroneous one.

Originally Posted by OBW

I am not saying that there is no cause for getting things right. But the history from which we spring tends to push us to repeat the same errors that we now despise in Lee and the LRC. And that is thinking you got it right and judging everyone else for their error.

That is one reason why I stood firm on this discussion because I was clearly painted with that brush because I asked someone training children a question about their teaching. If you are saying the response I got was reminiscent of the LRC I wouldn't disagree. If you are saying that I am the one that is so sure I got it right it doesn't make sense, over the course of the discussion I have completely changed my understanding.

Originally Posted by OBW

There is a place for getting it right. And that place is together. It is as the church. Not the Catholic church, or this denomination or that denomination. But as Christians willing to look beyond our petty preferences and search for truth together.

Isn't that what we were doing?

Originally Posted by OBW

I prefer immersion for baptism. Others sprinkling. I prefer believers baptism. Others take the words where whole households were baptized and do it on that basis of the household (and thus infant baptism). (BTW, do any of those groups believe, as a matter of teaching, that the infant is now saved?) But beyond these things that we differ upon, there is the core of the faith. And on this we agree. We may ultimately conclude that other positions are "right."

Paul taught headcovering, he explained it, he brought in the OT and created a solid NT teaching. But he also said if anyone seems contentious we have no such doctrine. The point is he didn't prohibit or discourage the study of the word, he just understood there are priorities. No one on this thread ever made a point that this topic is an item of the faith. Overcomers are not an item of the faith. The rapture is not an item of the faith. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't study it. There is no basis to imply that anyone on here has elevated this discussion to "an item of the faith".

Originally Posted by OBW

But we should always consider whether they are important. What does scripture actually say about it? Or is it just am implication?

And we should ask more questions than we answer. Even the scientific method of modernism finds answers by asking questions and seeking beyond what is known. Too often, our only question is where to find proof of what it is that we have already decided is true.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression you were objecting to us asking these questions? That was also my reading of Macduff's understanding as well.

Originally Posted by OBW

And when that is the exercise, then the postmodern position is far superior. Don't just tell me. Show me.

That was the point of what Ohio was doing by bringing in the accounts and testimonies of those who have been resuscitated.

Originally Posted by OBW

You say Jesus changes lives? Show me one. Shw me how you are changed.

I did. I shared the testimony of the Buddhist that died and saw Jesus.

Originally Posted by OBW

You claim that Christ makes you one. demonstrate it. I will assure you that just because there are two different groups meeting in different ways across the street from each other, that alone will not be seen as disproof of oneness. The fact that they come out together to live the gospel in the community without discord is proof that they are.

I obviously love logic. And, at some level, I love theology. But I hate theology that does not have meaningful impact on people's lives today. That picks through what is wrong with other Christians and how to avoid them. I hate theology that is at the cost of loving one another. And since there will be more than one way to understand what happens between death and the resurrection, I am happy for those who have come to peace because of their version (as a result of sola scripture — me and my Bible). But I hate the creation of a "this is the answer" when it has no bearing on love for one another — rather puts one more bullet in the gun of discord.

Once again this doesn't make sense. If I made a big issue of this why do I meet with this group? Why do I have my children go to the Catechism class? The level to which you and others appear to have lept to ugly conclusions is extremely offensive. I said I meet with a group, my children went to a Catechism class, they taught this, and I asked the person teaching the class privately for a verse reference. From that you jump to this idea that I am condemning others for teaching things different from my understanding. That is insulting.

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not say this concerning the core of the person of Christ and the core of salvation. Only concerning the periphery. And of all the things mentioned in scripture in any way, shape or form, what happens between death and the resurrection is one of the more unspecified items there is. I cringe at the very act of trying to "figure it out," especially to go to such lengths to defend the need to do so.

I do not believe that the need exists. Scripture itself, in its silence, seems to agree.

Figure it out for yourself if you want. Like your conclusions. Don't think they are "right" and others are "wrong." If it comforts you to go this route, then so be it. But to rejoin with others to defend the importance of the topic is to require a specific result which is to add one more cause for lack of unity in the body. One more new Christian denomination or splinter group.

You misread what I said about this being evidence that the LRC is blind, like Laodicea. I wasn't basing this on the fact that they teach that Christians don't go to heaven when they die. I do this because they mock and ridicule others for teaching that Christians go to heaven. There is a very big difference. This is why I asked "do you read the posts".

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I don't say that there are no problems anywhere. But the problems are the actual problems, not the ones layered on by implication of purist theology..

Well, I arguably "layered on" problems in my previous discussion of the organization of the fellowship of believers (i.e. the church), whether that organizing tendency was a problem in and of itself. I mostly saw my questioning as a public thought exercise, but as you point out the danger is that 1) there is really no way to prove if my hypothesis (say, "organizing is bad") is right or not (rather to take a stubborn satisfaction that no one can dislodge me from my position), and 2) that even if I gain a gaggle of admirers of my ideas --- Look, everyone, here is the most penetrating analyses yet!! --- really, what has it changed? What practical alternative does it offer? Really, none; except for me the freedom of being able to think "differently". For that experience alone, I am grateful. But beyond that, probably nothing good was done.

And certainly this recent thought exercise of mine (of course I speak not for other posters) has been similar. My question might have been posed thus: In the parables of Jesus, what do we see of the connections between this life and the life to come? And my attempts to tease meaning out of details like "owing 50 measures of wheat versus 100 measures" and so forth really doesn't go anywhere definitive. There is of course a "big picture" which most readers sense anyway, however they articulate it.

Originally Posted by OBW

We are poised to develop a new and better theology about how to say it right (and without intention, start looking down our noses at those who don't do it that way or agree with it)...

I appreciate your taking the time to critique in detail. I see the value in your commentary.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Your mocking question...

You are mistaken. You were the one who was mocking in your post, which you referred to as sarcastic, therefore my "mocking" question is ironic and is therefore sarcastic.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

Jesus did not say ...
Paul set out to deal with some claiming there is no resurrection...

You may not like it, but to me, the level to which the search for details not provided is in the "it doesn't matter" category.

Do you read the posts? The details were provided by Jesus and Paul.

1. Jesus told the thief "this day you will be with Me in paradise". That is one detail.
2. Paul said that when he died "he would be with Christ". That is another detail.
3. Paul said that "the dead in Christ rise first". That is a third detail.

Of course there are more. Jesus talked about Lazarus being in the bosom of Abraham, and a gulf that separates the two parts of Hades. Peter talks about different realms in Hades as well, mentioning Tartarus where the fallen angels are held. Then of course you can talk about the False Prophet and Anti Christ who both "went to their place until the appointed time". There is also the very thorny question of Elijah and Moses. Where did they go. If John the Baptist was Elijah who is to come, what does that mean?

Originally Posted by OBW

Martin Luther did not need to know where we go when we die ...

Then how does he know we don't go to purgatory? How does he know we shouldn't pay the indulgences?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Do you read the posts? The details were provided by Jesus and Paul.

1. Jesus told the thief "this day you will be with Me in paradise". That is one detail.
2. Paul said that when he died "he would be with Christ". That is another detail.
3. Paul said that "the dead in Christ rise first". That is a third detail.

Of course there are more. Jesus talked about Lazarus being in the bosom of Abraham, and a gulf that separates the two parts of Hades. Peter talks about different realms in Hades as well, mentioning Tartarus where the fallen angels are held. Then of course you can talk about the False Prophet and Anti Christ who both "went to their place until the appointed time". There is also the very thorny question of Elijah and Moses. Where did they go. If John the Baptist was Elijah who is to come, what does that mean?

THe answer to your opening question is "yes."

What you have demonstrated is that there are several references that somewhat fit together, and somewhat confuse one another. At least as long as the thought is that these are all very literal, precise-meaning phrases intending to provide a "modern," systematic, and cohesive theology. And if that is the goal, then there is room for complaint about inconsistencies. But I believe that you will see that each of these are specific references that are not intended so much to tell us about what happens after death as to reflect upon the results of the actions and decisions of this life.

We had some disagreement some months back about the cohesiveness of a series of parables that Jesus spoke. There was the field with the weeds sown by the enemy, followed by several others — some relating to growing and harvesting, some used leaven, and at least one referred to fishing. I don't remember if you had a particular thought on this, but my impression from these was that even where the same thing came up a second time, it was not necessarily for the purpose of creating a larger theology surrounding that thing, but of using some aspect of it to make a point.

Another is where Jesus speaks at least three parables in a row concerning sheep, shepherds, sheep pens, the gate, etc. In each of those, he made a specific point. Some think that the use of the common collective in the metaphorical sense was to build a complete metaphor concerning Christ. But if that is true, there is a problem. In one, Christ is the shepherd. But in another it is clear that men are shepherds. So it is not as simple as some larger whole.

And for those who just got lost in all of that, the thing that I see in these various tidbits about what happens after death are these:

1. They are not placed together.
2. The most important part of them (in most cases) is not what they say about what happens after death.

Since they have purpose other than the "after-death," and they are not even in the general proximity of each other, I do not find a compelling reason to begin to build a cohesive theology concerning what scripture does not say based on the nearly nothing that it does say.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by OBW

THe answer to your opening question is "yes."

What you have demonstrated is that there are several references that somewhat fit together, and somewhat confuse one another. At least as long as the thought is that these are all very literal, precise-meaning phrases intending to provide a "modern," systematic, and cohesive theology. And if that is the goal, then there is room for complaint about inconsistencies. But I believe that you will see that each of these are specific references that are not intended so much to tell us about what happens after death as to reflect upon the results of the actions and decisions of this life.

We had some disagreement some months back about the cohesiveness of a series of parables that Jesus spoke. There was the field with the weeds sown by the enemy, followed by several others — some relating to growing and harvesting, some used leaven, and at least one referred to fishing. I don't remember if you had a particular thought on this, but my impression from these was that even where the same thing came up a second time, it was not necessarily for the purpose of creating a larger theology surrounding that thing, but of using some aspect of it to make a point.

Another is where Jesus speaks at least three parables in a row concerning sheep, shepherds, sheep pens, the gate, etc. In each of those, he made a specific point. Some think that the use of the common collective in the metaphorical sense was to build a complete metaphor concerning Christ. But if that is true, there is a problem. In one, Christ is the shepherd. But in another it is clear that men are shepherds. So it is not as simple as some larger whole.

And for those who just got lost in all of that, the thing that I see in these various tidbits about what happens after death are these:

1. They are not placed together.
2. The most important part of them (in most cases) is not what they say about what happens after death.

Since they have purpose other than the "after-death," and they are not even in the general proximity of each other, I do not find a compelling reason to begin to build a cohesive theology concerning what scripture does not say based on the nearly nothing that it does say.

Although none of this is relevant to the current discussion it does remind me of something that is. On another forum there was a raging debate over "once saved always saved". So I asked them to define "saved" and provided about 9 or 10 different usages of this term in the New Testament.

Now this debate is central to this discussion and I would argue there is no way to reconcile the verses on "salvation" unless you determine that the word "saved" does not always refer to the same salvation. If you agree with that, which is basically your premise as I understand it in this post (just because a word is common to two different verses doesn't mean they are referring to the same truth), then you are forced to define what happens to a person after they die.

After all the word "overcome" is clearly making a fine delineation between two "saved" believers.