 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Serious Question | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/20/2004 12:21 PM (GMT -6) |   | quote:
Originally posted by Questioner
But perhaps we need to explore more of why these views are so important to the whole things. These two things are arrived at, I believe, because of two crucial theological axioms of Judeo-Christian thought:
1) Death is ULTIMATELY the product of SIN.
2) Death is an ENEMY of God.
If we don't get anthing from the Creation story, Jesus's own ministry, AND Paul's assertions...it would be these axioms. Now, the most consistent way to affirm the axioms above, given all the things we believe about "nature", is to say the cosmic deterioration and permeation of evil is ULTIMATELY the product of angelic sin (ie fallen angels like Satan). In this way, I would say that, from an evangelical standpoint, Dr. Boyd's theodicy is the most comprehensive and consistent with the crucial theological axioms.
I don't find Scripture to clearly teach that physical death is "ultimately the product of sin."
quote:
Let me be clear why this is so important. If someone were to assert things like...
-Death is NOT the enemy of God, but a natural (in the true sense) state of affairs that accompanies temporal life.
-Death is NOT ultimately the product of sin, but planned into the life process by God
...then that person would be effectively saying that plain, clear theological axioms of Judeo-Christian thought are wrong.
Assuming your premises and then arguing from them, I can certainly see how you arrive at your conclusions. But as I question the premises, none of the rest follows to my mind. Every passage that I'm aware of in Scripture that can be taken as teaching "death is ultimately the product of sin," can reasonably and consistently be understood as speaking of spiritual death.
Personally, I think the Gap theory has some things in favor of it, but the interpretation of Genesis is honestly not something I've made up my mind completely about yet. I have gone back and forth between young earth creationism and old earth creationism. (As there is absolutely no evidence of any species ever changing into a completely genetically new species, I remain unconvinced of the idea of "macro evolution."
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/20/2004 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE,
In your mind, what is the significance of Jesus' PHYSICAL resurrection? Why does that make such a difference...and how may that apply to this discussion?
Q | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/20/2004 12:36 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE,
Do you feel that physical death and "decay" is not an enemy of God? In other words, do you feel that physical death is NOT one of the works of the devil that Jesus was supposed to overcome?
I think this is an important question.
Q
Note. I assume that there are two forms of death. I simply believe that Scripture testifies that NEITHER was in the beginning plan of God. | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/20/2004 12:47 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Questioner
JEE,
In your mind, what is the significance of Jesus' PHYSICAL resurrection? Why does that make such a difference...and how may that apply to this discussion?
Q
Jesus' resurrection is "step one," so to speak in God "bringing many sons to GLORY," as Hebrews says. In my view, God originally intended for mankind to experience physical (but not spiritual) death, resurrection and ultimately glorification, with the probationary period of time each is allotted in this life being for the express purpose of proving/refining/sorting who would choose God, grace, and glory, and who would choose Satan and his ways of ETERNAL death.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/20/2004 12:52 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Questioner
JEE,
Do you feel that physical death and "decay" is not an enemy of God? In other words, do you feel that physical death is NOT one of the works of the devil that Jesus was supposed to overcome?
I think this is an important question.
Jesus told us to fear not him that was able to destroy the body, but rather to fear Him (God) who was able to destroy BOTH body and soul in hell. I certainly agree that Christ came to bring life, and that we might have it more abundantly. From my understanding, the word used for "life" in that now-famous quote of Jesus has to do with SPIRITUAL life, not physical.
Further, as Matthew reveals that Christ came to "save his people FROM their sins," and as we have seen, sin brings spiritual death, I see no contradiction at all in saying Christ came "to abolish death" and destroy (undo) him who had the power of death, that is, the devil. If this is all seen as spiritual death, it makes perfect sense. In addition, the Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, reveal that it is GOD who "kills and makes alive." (cf. Ananias & Sapphira, for instance).
That said, I think untimely death is, quite obviously, not how things were intended to be. It seems to me that we have the ability, to a certain extent, to either hasten or delay our own physical death, by choices we make or by knowledge we refuse, such as refusing to abide by the known laws of health. For instance, I have a friend who has suffered severe complications from adult-onset diabetes, which his physician had been warning him for YEARS he could avoid if he would pay attention to his diet and engage in regular exercise. Now the poor guy has started to have amputations, has had a couple of heart attacks, as well as a debilitating stroke, all in his early 50s, and all simply because he refused to take advantage of the knowledge he had. Very tragic. Not saying he could have lived forever physically (for I deny that premise altogether), but I am saying that MUCH of the suffering and evil we experience we bring on ourselves, if we will really think about it.
As to "decay," it seems to me that the created order is almost universally defined by the PROCESS of decay, death, burial, resurrection, if I may use such terms to describe the natural changing of the seasons, the natural process of the food chain, etc. I honestly can't see how God created sharks for any other reason than to be a predator, for instance.
Natural "evil," to my mind, simply is what is entailed in the kind of creation God made. In order for us to have a livable environment in which to thrive, God had to create the elements and the system we call weather; tornadoes, hurricanes, earthquakes, and the like are all necessary parts of such a created system as we have here on earth, and, if you swim in the ocean, by definition you run the risk of being eaten by a shark or of drowning. That said, I don't subscribe to the idea that these calamities are necessarily always to be considered "acts of God." I prefer to think of them in terms of the physical laws of cause and effect. They all have their own scientific explanation, in other words.
quote:
Note. I assume that there are two forms of death. I simply believe that Scripture testifies that NEITHER was in the beginning plan of God.
I certainly agree that spiritual death was never intended by God, though it certainly was a built-in possibility to Creation. However, it seems to me that physical death is simply part of being finite physical beings.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/20/2004 2:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Questioner,
quote:
More about death...
Death and deterioration, it would seem, follows from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.
It would seem that to 1) agree with Greg's warfare worldview and 2) agree with the Biblical axioms I've mentioned above...
One would HAVE to say that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics was
--NOT planned by God originally
and...
--is fundamentally product of demonic influence!
I'm finding this harder and harder to believe by the moment.
Help?
I agree with others that death need not be an inevitable consequence of the 2nd Law. Alternatively, maybe life spans were long enough that the earth would have been "filled up" before any "soulish" being died of old age and God would have intervened supernaturally at that point; Or the tree of life would have given them immortality or sustained them.
But I cannot believe that all natural evil is the "direct" result of evil beings. Eve's suffering in child-bearing was the result of God, seemingly, though it was DUE to an improper use of volition. Thus, the philosophical idea that all inevitable, natural evil is due to improper use of volition could be true EVEN IF God is the effectual cause of much of it.
I do agree with Greg, however, that if natural evil is not ultimately explained by the improper use of volition, the Scriptural theodicy seems to be falsified.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/20/2004 10:32 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE,
Could you give me your view of how Paul discusses "death" in 1 Corinthians 15? Especially with the "perishable/inperishable" language. Was he referring primarily to spiritual death when he spoke of the contrast between the "spiritual body" and the "physical body"?
It seems quite clear to me Paul believes that "death" (I would say BOTH TYPES) was the result of Adamic sin. (Especially keeping in mind Romans 5) Also Romans 8:10 says...
"But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. "
This is a very interesting passage. It seems to hint that the death of the BODY is a product of SIN. It seems to hint that death of the body is assumed for human beings BECAUSE of sin's effects. And given what Paul was saying in Romans 5, it should be no surprise...
Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come. But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
The hope is in resurrection from the dead and the transformation of the "physical body" to the "spiritual body"...from the perishable to the imperishable.
I honestly don't see how, at least from a Pauline perspective, that any evangelical could say that physical death is to be seen as a God-blessed, natural aspect of human life. At best, given the Creation stories, given we take them a certain way, it would seem that physical death was an ACCOMODATION to a sorry situation...Gen 3:22-23...
"Then the LORD God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. "
Recall that the Tree of Life was open to the Adamic couple. Theoretically, it could be said that they were INTENDED to eat of that tree forever. But because of their sinful state "knowing good and evil" they were restricted from living eternally IN that state.
In any event PHYSICAL death ended up being the result of sin. And not ultimately intended by God. And part of the hope of the early church was freedom from the tyranny of PHYSICAL death and decay in Christ.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/20/2004 10:58 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Questioner
JEE,
Could you give me your view of how Paul discusses "death" in 1 Corinthians 15? Especially with the "perishable/inperishable" language. Was he referring primarily to spiritual death when he spoke of the contrast between the "spiritual body" and the "physical body"?
As I affirm that to be human is to be inherently mortal, I have no problem with Paul referring to the human body as "perishible" in 1 Cor. 15. The "spiritual body" I understand to be the resurrected, glorified body of the saint, which, in my view, was God's ultimate plan for mankind from the very beginning. (For to be physical is to be of finite existence).
quote:
It seems quite clear to me Paul believes that "death" (I would say BOTH TYPES) was the result of Adamic sin. (Especially keeping in mind Romans 5) Also Romans 8:10 says...
"But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. "
This is a very interesting passage. It seems to hint that the death of the BODY is a product of SIN. It seems to hint that death of the body is assumed for human beings BECAUSE of sin's effects. And given what Paul was saying in Romans 5, it should be no surprise...
If Paul were speaking of physical death in Romans 8:1-14, it would require that a physical RESURRECTION take place every time someone became born again. "If you live after the flesh (carnal impulses) you shall die (spiritually); but if you by the Spirit do put to death the evil misdeeds of the body, you shall live (spiritually). If you try to insert "physically" in those two places, it is perfectly incoherent, for everyone dies physically eventually, regardless of whether they live after the flesh or after the Spirit.
quote:
I honestly don't see how, at least from a Pauline perspective, that any evangelical could say that physical death is to be seen as a God-blessed, natural aspect of human life. At best, given the Creation stories, given we take them a certain way, it would seem that physical death was an ACCOMODATION to a sorry situation...Gen 3:22-23...
"Then the LORD God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. "
Continued eating from the tree of life was the condition upon which eternal life would be sustained. This presents no problem for my view, as I affirm that eternal life in mortals is in fact directly dependent upon their relationship with Christ. A good case can be made that the tree of life is a type of Christ, who would later call himself "the bread of life, which I shall give for the life of the world."
I certainly agree that there were some things in creation that came under a curse in Gen. 3, but certainly not everything is utterly cursed. I also would agree that the Fall brought about aggravated physical depravity to our already mortal bodies, thus making death much sooner than it would have been had no sin entered the world.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/21/2004 12:35 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE said:
"If Paul were speaking of physical death in Romans 8:1-14, it would require that a physical RESURRECTION take place every time someone became born again"
No, I don't think that's the case. It seems more natural to say that Paul is referring to physical death in the passage…Rom 8:10-11..
But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.
When Paul talks Jesus raising "from the dead", which type of death do you think he's talking about? I'd bet that you'd say physical. So, what's Paul's point? Simply that the same Spirit who raised Christ from physical death into newness of life…with be the same Spirit who will raise OUR "mortal" bodies from the dead.
Paul is clear: "Make no mistake. You WILL die because of the effects of sin that has reigned since Adam…BUT have hope! The Spirit of God will raise YOU from the dead…just like he raised Christ!"
But if you look at all of Romans 8, this becomes abundantly clear! When Paul talks about the law of sin and death, he talks about how life in the "flesh" ends up ULTIMATELY in death. And this would just make sense, given Paul's implicit argument: If it is the Spirit of God that raises one from the dead…and you are not walking by that Spirit…then you are up the creek! You WILL die…period. In other words, Paul is NOT talking about spiritual death. He is talking about the certain future and irrevocability of death without life in the Spirit.
Paul's theology seems very heavy on Christ's resurrection from the dead as hope for creation's release from death's tyrannical stranglehold. He believes that sin (separation from God) and death are inextricably linked…and that Christ and His Spirit have overcome the law of BOTH.
This is why I feel like biblical witness clearly articulates a belief that physical death and "creation's groaning" is ultimately the result of sin…sin that came from ADAM. I have placed all the crucial Scripture in context below. It's a lot of reading…but I think it'll be worth it.
---------
Romans 5 NRSV
5:1 Therefore, since we are justified by faith, we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ, 2 through whom we have obtained access to this grace in which we stand; and we boast in our hope of sharing the glory of God. 3 And not only that, but we also boast in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not disappoint us, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit that has been given to us.
6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 Indeed, rarely will anyone die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person someone might actually dare to die. 8 But God proves his love for us in that while we still were sinners Christ died for us. 9 Much more surely then, now that we have been justified by his blood, will we be saved through him from the wrath of God. 10 For if while we were enemies, we were reconciled to God through the death of his Son, much more surely, having been reconciled, will we be saved by his life. 11 But more than that, we even boast in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death came through sin, and so death spread to all because all have sinned— 13 sin was indeed in the world before the law, but sin is not reckoned when there is no law. 14 Yet death exercised dominion from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sins were not like the transgression of Adam, who is a type of the one who was to come.
15 But the free gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died through the one man’s trespass, much more surely have the grace of God and the free gift in the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, abounded for the many. 16 And the free gift is not like the effect of the one man’s sin. For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brings justification. 17 If, because of the one man’s trespass, death exercised dominion through that one, much more surely will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness exercise dominion in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18 Therefore just as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all. 19 For just as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. 20 But law came in, with the result that the trespass multiplied; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, 21 so that, just as sin exercised dominion in death, so grace might also exercise dominion through justification leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
------------
Romans 8 NRSV
There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus. For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and of death. 3 For God has done what the law, weakened by the flesh, could not do: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and to deal with sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, 4 so that the just requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. 5 For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit. 6 To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace. 7 For this reason the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God; it does not submit to God’s law—indeed it cannot, 8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. 10 But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. 11 If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.
12 So then, brothers and sisters, we are debtors, not to the flesh, to live according to the flesh— 13 for if you live according to the flesh, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live. 14 For all who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God. 15 For you did not receive a spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received a spirit of adoption. When we cry, “Abba! Father!” 16 it is that very Spirit bearing witness with our spirit that we are children of God, 17 and if children, then heirs, heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ—if, in fact, we suffer with him so that we may also be glorified with him.
18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
26 Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but that very Spirit intercedes with sighs too deep for words. 27 And God, who searches the heart, knows what is the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints according to the will of God.
28 We know that all things work together for good for those who love God, who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn within a large family. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called; and those whom he called he also justified; and those whom he justified he also glorified.
31 What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us? 32 He who did not withhold his own Son, but gave him up for all of us, will he not with him also give us everything else? 33 Who will bring any charge against God’s elect? It is God who justifies. 34 Who is to condemn? It is Christ Jesus, who died, yes, who was raised, who is at the right hand of God, who indeed intercedes for us. 35 Who will separate us from the love of Christ? Will hardship, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? 36 As it is written,
“For your sake we are being killed all day long;
we are accounted as sheep to be slaughtered.”
37 No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. 38 For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, 39 nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.
---------------
1 Cor 15
15:1 Now I would remind you, brothers and sisters, of the good news that I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received, in which also you stand, 2 through which also you are being saved, if you hold firmly to the message that I proclaimed to you—unless you have come to believe in vain.
3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers and sisters at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have died. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me. 9 For I am the least of the apostles, unfit to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. 10 But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace toward me has not been in vain. On the contrary, I worked harder than any of them—though it was not I, but the grace of God that is with me. 11 Whether then it was I or they, so we proclaim and so you have come to believe.
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
20 But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have died. 21 For since death came through a human being, the resurrection of the dead has also come through a human being; 22 for as all die in Adam, so all will be made alive in Christ. 23 But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. 24 Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to God the Father, after he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. 27 For “God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” But when it says, “All things are put in subjection,” it is plain that this does not include the one who put all things in subjection under him. 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.
29 Otherwise, what will those people do who receive baptism on behalf of the dead? If the dead are not raised at all, why are people baptized on their behalf?
30 And why are we putting ourselves in danger every hour? 31 I die every day! That is as certain, brothers and sisters, as my boasting of you—a boast that I make in Christ Jesus our Lord. 32 If with merely human hopes I fought with wild animals at Ephesus, what would I have gained by it? If the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”
33 Do not be deceived:
“Bad company ruins good morals.”
34 Come to a sober and right mind, and sin no more; for some people have no knowledge of God. I say this to your shame.
35 But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” 36 Fool! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. 37 And as for what you sow, you do not sow the body that is to be, but a bare seed, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. 39 Not all flesh is alike, but there is one flesh for human beings, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. 40 There are both heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is one thing, and that of the earthly is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; indeed, star differs from star in glory.
42 So it is with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a physical body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a physical body, there is also a spiritual body. 45 Thus it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living being”; the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 46 But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual. 47 The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so are those who are of the dust; and as is the man of heaven, so are those who are of heaven. 49 Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we will also bear the image of the man of heaven.
50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:
“Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
-----------------------------
Does everyone yet see my problem? I believe that interpretational integrity demands that I say that Pauline thought had the theological belief that physical death was a product of sin and NOT a God-blessed aspect of the natural order. That physical death was something that God got VICTORY over in Christ. Victory because death was an ENEMY of God used as power over humanity by the devil. This is what links Dr. Boyd's theodicy to his CHRISTUS VICTOR atonement motif. This is why Greg keeps two axioms in mind...when doing his theologizing. He's trying to be as faithful to Scriptural assertions as possible.
To assert what Iconoclast and others are asserting about physical death being a natural,
God-blessed aspect of the natural order is to effectively contradict Paul's clear teaching!
Is Paul wrong? If so, what does this mean?
Q
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 8/21/2004 12:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Hi Q,
Just a quick note or two and then I have to go until later...
quote:
Originally posted by Questioner
JEE said:
"If Paul were speaking of physical death in Romans 8:1-14, it would require that a physical RESURRECTION take place every time someone became born again"
No, I don't think that's the case. It seems more natural to say that Paul is referring to physical death in the passage…Rom 8:10-11..
But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. If the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will give life to your mortal bodies also through his Spirit that dwells in you.
Looking at the flow of thought in 8:1-14, Paul is clearly comparing and contrasting the two ways of living--carnally or spiritually, and showing that one leads to spiritual death while they other leads to spiritual life. How does Romans 8:13 make any sense at all if Paul were referring to physical death in it? I honestly don't see how. If he's speaking of physical death, he really is being extremely absurdly redundant, because EVERYBODY who lives will die physically eventually, regardless of whether or not they live a spiritual life.
quote:
When Paul talks Jesus raising "from the dead", which type of death do you think he's talking about?
I believe Jesus physically rose from the dead in a glorified body, never to die again. I also believe there is a spiritual application of this new life in Christ. Paul says to Christians (who are obviously not yet physically dead), "If ye then be RISEN with Christ, seek those things which are above..."
quote:
I'd bet that you'd say physical. So, what's Paul's point? Simply that the same Spirit who raised Christ from physical death into newness of life…with be the same Spirit who will raise OUR "mortal" bodies from the dead.
I fail to see how merely posting entire chapters makes your argument for you. (We all have access to Bibles, both at home and on the web). Just quoting chapter upon chapter without comment and an attempt at reasoning from the scriptures quoted, really doesn't prove your argument.
quote:
50 What I am saying, brothers and sisters, is this: flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I will tell you a mystery! We will not all die, but we will all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed. 53 For this perishable body must put on imperishability, and this mortal body must put on immortality. 54 When this perishable body puts on imperishability, and this mortal body puts on immortality, then the saying that is written will be fulfilled:
“Death has been swallowed up in victory.”
55 “Where, O death, is your victory?
Where, O death, is your sting?”
56 The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
58 Therefore, my beloved, be steadfast, immovable, always excelling in the work of the Lord, because you know that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.
As I believe "flesh and blood" are indeed perishable (by definition) it is not clear to me why you think I don't affirm the above passage of Scripture. I affirm Christ's victory over death, both spiritual and physical.
quote:
To assert what Iconoclast and others are asserting about physical death being a natural,
God-blessed aspect of the natural order is to effectively contradict Paul's clear teaching!
Is Paul wrong? If so, what does this mean?
Q
I personally don't affirm Iconoclast's allegorical approach to Scripture.
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/21/2004 1:13 AM (GMT -6) | | How about this? We can say that Paul had a pre-scientific understanding of the world (along with all the other Second Temple Judaism folks) and obviously didn't know about things like the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, evolution, the Big Bang, etc. He spoke out of his pre-scientific understandings of the world…3 tiered heaven and all that. Because of this, he actually believed that physical death and the phenomena of sin originated from a literal Adam and Eve couple. He actually believed that death was an ENEMY of God and the groaning of Creation was something to be overcame. He actually believed that Christ was the new Adam who would fix all the problems (death included) created by the first Adam. Little did he know that entropy and physical death were part and parcel of this whole thing from the VERY beginning! Little did Paul know that death itself was NOT the enemy…only the fear of death created by a growing awareness of our own finitude! Little did Paul know that God actually thought that physical death was part of a "very good" process! 
Paul was inaccurate. Nope, just wrong.
And insofar as Paul's teachings are Scriptural teachings, those Scriptural teachings are wrong, too.
Does that sound ok to everyone?
Q
| | Back to Top | | |
|
billzbob
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 82
| Posted 8/21/2004 3:33 AM (GMT -6) | | [quoteDoes that sound ok to everyone?
Q]
Heresy to me!!!!
(Presuming to you too--that it was strident sarcasm.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/21/2004 3:45 AM (GMT -6) | | Questioner,
In Genesis, God Adam "to dust thou shalt return." That seems to make physical death the consequence of sin. As John said, the tree of life would have kept them alive had they not sinned. If the second death is a final death and not a state of eternal torment, your argument about physical death being the wages of sin seems to be the most plausible to me.
As I understand it, only an Open View approach to the "very good" oringinal intent of creation can solve the problem of evil. If the problem of evil cannot be solved, it is not just the Bible that loses credibility, it is our common sense view of morality and justice that still guides modern day legal thinking.
Moreover, the modern view of science, if taken to it's logical conclusion, implies that there is no such thing as libertarian free-will. This not only eliminates any common-sensical view of ethics, it leads to intellectual suicide of all kinds - for how can one trust his/her own thinking if one has no control over it; maybe it's all just a dream. Scientists have claimed to prove that our intuitions of time, space, and causality are not accurate. But if those intuitions are not accurate, then maybe the rest aren't.
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/21/2004 5:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Don't like the idea, bill? I can understand…
but when it comes to how the axioms (Death as product of sin & Death as enemy of God) can be true, given everything that we know about origins…it becomes VERY hard, I believe, for a person to hold that Adam was the PRIMAL originator of the sin that spawned death. This is why Greg ends up saying what he says in Satan and the Problem of Evil. In brief,
1. God gave significant power over the creation process to angels
2. These angels fell into sin (separation from God)
3. These angels used their irrevocable freedom and authority to pervert the creation process at it's fundamental bases
4. Enter death, deterioration, carnivorousness, etc…
5. God wars against these evil angels, judges them and the world (note. All of this takes place before Gen 1:2)
6. God recreates the world from the "formless void" and creates human beings to act as guardians over creation.
7. This adamic couple messes up, falls into sin, and lets dominion fall back into the hands of Satan and his angels.
It's like a Pandora's box thing. God wars against all the evil, judges it, and forces it into a box called "Decision at the Garden of Eden" Then God tells the adamic couple to have dominion, but recognize their limits or they shall "surely die" They screw up and WHOOM, Pandora's box is open letting all the evil of the world back out again…including sin, death, and all that.
It's a very creative way to keep the axioms in play with a modern scientific findings about the world. And it uses these things as bases:
The assumed literal existence of non-corporeal, eternal evil entities called "demons"
The "restorationist" view of Creation
The Christus Victor atonement motif
That's why, as I said before, Greg's warfare worldview doesn't hold up IF one doesn't accept his view of "natural" evil. It won't work without it. The only reason that Iconclast believes that his "Epistemic Distance Entails Entropy" idea works is because he assumes that demons are only metaphorical…AND he obviously has no need or compunction to reconcile his idea with Pauline theological assertions. Out of all the evangelical options out there, Greg really has the most consistent and coherent option available. (Yes, Iconoclast, I would agree with you that it is "reaching"…but there is an ideological reason why the "reaching" takes place) Nothing else explains coherently how physical death really, in some way, CAN be a product of sin in general, ADAMIC sin in particular. Hence, he says, after all is said and done:
"While there are a number of variables that must be considered for a comprehensive understanding of such terrible occurances, [of evil] their ultimate explanation must lie in the volition of evil agents who abuse their God-given authority. In short, Satan and his legions are directly or indirectly behind all forms of "natural" evil. Satan turns the neutral medium of the natural order into a weapon just as human agents sometimes use rocks, sticks, or water as weapons when they choose to do so. This conclusion is the only one entirely consistent with the Bible and the only one that adequately accounts for all the data in need of explanation"
All the data…including Paul's view of the sin/death relationship!
So, it seems we're back to square one. If a person, being of sound mind, cannot affirm:
1)the plausibility of the restorationist idea
2)Greg's view of "natural" evil's origin
and because of that, also cannot affirm that death is an UNNATURAL process that is both an enemy to God and an ultimate product of sin…
then I don't see how that person could affirm Paul's teaching about death as being true. That person would have to say that Paul may have been in error on that point. But to say that a biblical author may have been wrong on a theological claim like that places one squarely outside of the realm of Evangelicalism, if not plain Christian Orthodoxy.
So, is Bill right? Am I now a heretic if this sound-minded person is me? Would I be better off just believing Paul's teachings because it's Holy Scripture…and forget about how it just doesn't square with other things. Would I be better off taking Dr. Boyd's creative, yet ultimately implausible "streeeeetches" just to stay in the boat with the other taffy-pulling theologians?
Or maybe...
I should I be honest with myself and my faith…and just say that there is theological diversity in the Bible such that some views may be outright inconsistent with other views. And some views just may not square with what we know and be wrong in that way. But that doesn't stop the Bible from being the collection of books that Judeo-Christian faith uses to live and relive it's past, present, and future relationship with God through Christ. The Bible is NOT inerrant OR infallible in the evangelical sense, but neither were the people that God has ever used in history! It is still useful for faith and life. It still hold transformational power and truth. It is still God's Word to us.
What do YOU think?
Q
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/21/2004 5:33 AM (GMT -6) | | | Does this officially make me a "liberal" now? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/21/2004 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Questioner,
You ask what do we think. I, personally, think faith is meaningless apart from the principle of non-contradiction. If God can't provide us with scriptures that can be trusted to be true, what is faith? Doesn't Paul say faith cometh by hearing and hearing the WORD OF GOD. If the bible is contradictory, we can never use the principle of "don't add to and don't take away." The whole hermeneutic approach of each person can vary and Christian unity is impossible. Your approach commits intellectual suicide as does the materialistic view of modern science. Scientific problems do not constitute absolute failure. ALL HISTORICAL scientific paradigms have MAJOR problems. I agree with Greg, that philosophical coherence MUST take priority over scientific paradigms - at least until science has progressed to a point where it can truly have the justified confidence in it's declarations that it currently claims.
quote:
6. God recreates the world from the "formless void" and creates human beings to act as guardians over creation.
If God recreated the world from a formless void, separated waters above from waters below, separated dry land from water, after hundreds of millions of years of earth history, wouldn't that be discernable in the geological record? It seems presumptuous for Greg to assume his view has little or no scientific problems. I'm I missing something in his explanation?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:02 AM (GMT -6) | | WJS:
"If God recreated the world from a formless void, separated waters above from waters below, separated dry land from water, after hundreds of millions of years of earth history, wouldn't that be discernable in the geological record? It seems presumptuous for Greg to assume his view has little or no scientific problems. I'm I missing something in his explanation?"
Better to get it from the horse's mouth. This is straight from Satan and the Problem of Evil. Dr Boyd…
(note. I'm not trying to bog you guys down with reading. What I am trying to do is show you ALL the evidence that leads to the conclusions stated.)
---------------
Be that as it may, we nevertheless have to reconcile the view that nature is corrupted by fallen angels with the Genesis 1 creation account in which God pronounced everything "good" prior to the fall. In what follows I shall consider three viable interpretations of Genesis 1 and attempt to show how the trinitarian warfare theodicy might be rendered compatible with each one.
Evolution and Genesis 1 as Myth. The most common interpretation of Genesis 1 by scholars today is that it is a poetic myth that expresses theologi-cal truth. Contrary to all the pagan views of its neighbors, this creation account expresses Israel’s conviction that the whole creation comes from Yahweh. He is completely sovereign over it and it is essentially good. In this view, the details of this inspired mythic poetry cannot be used to dis-pute the prevailing scientific view that the earth is five bil-lion years old, that all species have evolved from lower species, and that suf-fering has been a part of the evolutionary process for millions of years.
If this interpretation of Genesis 1 is accepted, there is little difficulty reconciling this passage with the trinitarian warfare theodicy. At some point in the prehistoric past, the evolutionary defender of the warfare theodicy could argue, Satan and his angels rebelled. As part of their assault on the Creator, they assailed his work of creation, perhaps by perverting the responsibility they had as guardians over aspects of this creation. Hence, long before humans existed—perhaps at the beginning of the evolutionary process itself—these agents exercised a corrupting influence on the creation. Insofar as it was within their authority as guardians to do so, they twisted the laws of nature and cor-rupted the evolutionary process to reflect something of their perverse nature rather than the benevolent nature of the Creator. Hence the animal kingdom and all of nature reflects both the wisdom of the Creator and the violence of his opponents.
A defender of this interpretation could further argue that despite this satanic counter-influence, God providentially achieved his aim in creating beings in his image. Unlike any of the previous animals, humanity was empowered with morally responsible free will and empowered by the Creator to enter into a loving relationship with him and to participate in his fight against the anti-creational forces to regain lordship of the earth.
Unfortunately, we freely allowed ourselves to be co-opted by the very power we were commis-sioned to overthrow. We have thus come under the same bondage as the rest of creation. Through the work of the cross God has sought to defeat his opponents and restore humans to their original place as guardians of the earth.
A Creationist Reading. For both biblical and scientific reasons, many scholars reject the theory of evolution and/or the mythic reading of Genesis 1. Some of these rather interpret the Genesis 1 account as a mostly literal picture of creation. Such an interpretation clearly eliminates the view that Satan and his fol-lowers exercised a corrupting influence on the laws of nature and the ani-mal kingdom before the fall of humanity. But it is not necessarily incom-patible with the warfare theodicy on this account.
One could argue that, whenever the angels fell, they did not begin their pro-cess of corrupting the world until after Satan successfully co-opted the origi-nal parents into his rebellion. When Adam and Eve fell, they sur-rendered to Satan the authority over the earth that they and their descendents were supposed to have. Once established as "ruler" and "god" of the world (John 12:31; 14:30; 16:11; 2 Cor. 4:4), Satan immediately began to exercise his own "dominion over the earth." And, in keeping with his character—one of his names is Apolyon ("destroyer," Rev. 9:11, cf. John 10:10)—this dominion was decidedly destruc-tive.
One could argue that God was involved in this "cursing," as the Genesis account says, in the sense that he was the one who gave permission to Satan to take over the dominion intended for humans. It was, after all, the Creator who established the cosmos as a place within which morally responsible agents can affect others for better or for worse. God created the world such that when morally responsible agents fall, everything they are morally responsible for will become adversely affected. This, we have argued (ch. V), is part of the meaning of moral responsi-bility.
Hence, there is no contradiction in saying that God cursed the earth because of Adam’s fall and that Satan and his legions also plague the earth because of Adam’s fall.
All other facets of the trinitarian warfare worldview could be considered in the same way as the previously discussed evolutionary view, except that on this interpretation all of the corrupting influence occurs after the creation and fall of human-ity. It was at this point that the laws of nature became twisted and ani-mals became predatorial. This radical alteration need not have happened all at once: the gradual shortening of human life in the Genesis record perhaps suggests the corrupting influence took time to satu-rate the creation. But, regardless of how much leeway we ascribe to the genealogies of Genesis 1 through 5, it must have happened rather quickly, especially in comparison to the time allowed for in the evolution-ary view.
The Restoration Reading. While it is not incompatible with the trinitarian warfare view of "natural" evil, the creationist reading of Genesis 1 problematic. Among other things, this view contradicts the nearly unanimous consensus of geologists that the earth is bil-lions of years old, as well as the nearly unanimous consensus of paleontologists that animals were devouring one another millions of years before humans arrived on the scene. If creationists are right, one has to accept that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time and that the original Tyrannasurs Rex was vegetarian!
There is a third view that may avoid the difficulties of both the first and second readings of Genesis 1 and may be the most compatible with the warfare understanding of "natural" evil. It is called the "restoration" or "gap" theory of creation. In this view, Genesis 1:1 describes the original creation while Genesis 1:2 describes this creation after it had been corrupted by demonic influences, torn apart by a spiritual war and come under God’s judgment. Genesis 1:3–31 then describes (in literal or non-literal terms) God’s work of restoring the earth by refashioning it out of the materials of the previous creation.
In keeping with this reading, we may suppose that over billions of years the original creation came under bondage to destructive spirits, some of whom perhaps had been agents originally entrusted by the Creator with caring for it. These guardians joined Satan’s rebellion, however, and began exercising their domain of influence in an anti-creational manner. In this sense, the restoration view is similar to the previously discussed evolutionary warfare perspective. In so far as these fallen spirits were able (viz. in so far as they possessed irrevocable authority), they twisted the laws of nature which governed the cosmos in a destructive direction. They perverted earth’s animal inhabi-tants, perhaps infiltrating the evolutionary process (if such a process was indeed present). Perhaps in a manner remotely analogous to the way deformed hybrid creatures were produced by the mixture of demonic and human natures prior to the flood (Gen. 6:1–4), the mingling of demonic influences with the good creative "life-force" (N. P. Williams) of God produced hybrid crea-tures in this world which no longer perfectly reflected the glory of their original Creator.
Nature became hostile, creatures became vicious, and the whole planet became subject to God’s enemy and was no longer fit for the purposes for which it was originally created.
Eventually God waged war against his foes who now significantly controlled the world. It is perhaps this battle that is echoed throughout the many creation-conflict passages of the Old Testament. Using mythological imagery familiar to Ancient Near Eastern people, inspired writers depicted and celebrated Yahweh’s battle with and victory over malevolent forces such as "the raging sea," "the deep," "Leviathan" the many headed dragon, and "Rahab" along with her cohorts. And, as each of these passages proclaim, it was out of this battle that the world we presently inhabit was created. It’s not that Satan was destroyed or the entire universe was permanently cleansed from demonic influences. But the forces that had seized this earth had been subdued, at least tem-porarily.
Similar to God’s decision to start over with humanity in the days of Noah, God judged and mostly destroyed the previous demon-inhabited war-torn world. As a result of this judgment, and perhaps as a result of the cosmic battle itself, the earth was reduced to the "formless void" we find in Genesis 1:2. Since the concept of "the deep" (tehom) was a way of expressing threatening chaos in the Ancient Near East, we may interpret the reference to the Spirit (or wind, ruach) of God brooding over this abyss in this verse as the author’s way of expressing God’s on-going control of his foes. He had set a guard against "the Sea" and "the Dragon" (Job 7:12). He had assigned the rebel waters "a boundary that they may not pass" (Ps. 104:9).
And then, as he did after Noah’s flood and as he shall do once again when he purges the earth at the end of this age (2 Pet 3:10, 12; Rev. 21:1), God began the process of restoring the earth by refashioning it out of the remains of the old one.
Keeping the forces of evil at bay, and apparently working at a highly accelerated rate (if we take the Genesis 1 record more literally), God refashioned a new animal kingdom devoid of the meat-eating monsters (e.g. carnivorous dinosaurs) which had evolved in the previous one. In keeping with his universal design to exercise his sover-eign Lordship through morally responsible administrators, God created humans after his own image to be responsible stewards and guardians of this new world.
The primary responsibility of humans was to preserve and perhaps expand God’s "con-quest of an evil being who had penetrated into creation" as Franz Delizsch describes it. They were thus instructed and empow-ered to "subdue" the earth (Gen. 1:28) and to guard the garden (2:15). They were to exercise a loving lordship over the whole animal kingdom, as rep-resented by Adam’s charge to name all the animals (Gen. 2:19–20). They were to glorify God by being his viceroys* upon the earth.
Not only this, but judging from what later transpired through Christ (already foreshadowed in Gen. 3:15), it is possible that one of God’s original agendas in recreating the earth and establishing humanity as stewards over it was to ultimately employ these earthly guardians in a strategy for overthrowing the rival kingdom once and for all. This was accomplished by the God-man Jesus Christ allowing himself to be crucified by the spiritual "rulers of this age" and by rising victori-ous on the third day (Col. 2:13–15, cf. John 12:31; 1 Pet. 3:21–22). Empowered by the Spirit of our con-quering head, the Church is now to fulfill the role of original humanity: reclaiming the earth from the kingdom of darkness as the domain in which the Creator is King.
In any event, the refashioned paradise apparently did not last long. As soon as he was able, the enemy sought to recapture the earth by deceiving its human rulers and bringing them under his domain of influence. We of course don’t know how long Eden lasted, but we do know that at some point the enemy discovered a strategy that worked. The viceroys of God and intended stewards of the earth surrendered their authority over the earth to the enemy (Luke 4:6) and joined the satanic rebellion. In doing so they exposed the earth once again to the same corrupting forces of evil that had perverted it in the previous age.
As the refashioning of nature had been carried out by God at an acceler-ated speed, so was its re-corruption, it seems. With the lord of death and destruction enthroned once again (Heb. 2:14) humans began to die within a millennium. Within a few more thousand years they live for scarcely more than a century. In time, the global average would be less than a half a century.
We can imagine nature and the animal kingdom undergoing the same accelerated process of corruption. Having come once again under the influence of its previous evil anti-creator, the laws of nature once again became twisted, the animal kingdom once again became violent, and humans who were originally commissioned to rule the whole planet with the love and power of God became the subjects of the very forces they were supposed to control.
A number of things can be said in favor of this view. Its integration of the cre-ation-conflict accounts of the Old Testa-ment is a strong point in its favor which the other views lack. It explains why angels are not included in the list of things created in Genesis 1, though their existence seems to be presupposed in the first person plural of verse 26. It also explains how an evil serpent could appear out of nowhere in Genesis 3, and why the Lord commanded Adam and Eve to "subdue" the earth (1:28) and guard the garden (2:15) even though the world itself had been pronounced good. And it does not require us to reject the consensus of geologists and paleontologists regarding the duration and violent nature of the earth before humans arrived on the scene. It thus need not postulate vegetarian dinosaurs contemporary with humans, as does the creationist account. But neither is its coherence undermined if one decides on other grounds that evolutionary theory is implausible.
On these grounds I am inclined, however tentatively, to accept the restoration interpretation of Genesis. Though the plausibility of the trinitarian warfare theodicy doesn’t hang on this, I believe that this interpretation accommodates this theodicy best. Nevertheless, I have attempted to demonstrate that whatever view of Genesis 1 one adopts, it is possible to integrate a warfare understanding of "natural" evil into it.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Questioner
Could you give me your view of how Paul discusses "death" in 1 Corinthians 15? Especially with the "perishable/inperishable" language. Was he referring primarily to spiritual death when he spoke of the contrast between the "spiritual body" and the "physical body"?
Iconoclast
My answer is yes. I understand Paul to be making a spiritual argument in order to speak spiritual truth. Paul has no intention, in my opinion, of giving us insight into the nature of physical reality. When we try to infer such things from what he says I believe we are on shaky ground.
Questioner
"But you are not in the flesh; you are in the Spirit, since the Spirit of God dwells in you. Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him. But if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, the Spirit is life because of righteousness. "
Iconoclast
Notice that Paul presumes that the body is dead right now. He doesn’t say that the body will die because of sin or that it wouldn’t have if we had never sinned. He says it is dead right now because of sin.
I interpret this to mean that our body is dead right now because it has lost its connection with the creator. We are in disunity with the creator because we sinned – because we fell. This goes back to understanding the statement that we shall die in the day we eat of the fruit to mean that we will be in disunity with God the day we eat of it. This is a spiritual statement and not a physical statement. It has no bearing on the nature of physical death or not.
One could also infer from this that the body cannot regain its essential unity with God but our spirit can when Christ is in us. Thus, our body can only regain it essential unity with God when it physically dies to be reborn into a new body – one that is again in unity with God.
But again, none of this really comments on the nature of entropy or epistemic distance before the fall.
Questioner
"Then the LORD God said, “See, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, he might reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever”— therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. "
Recall that the Tree of Life was open to the Adamic couple. Theoretically, it could be said that they were INTENDED to eat of that tree forever. But because of their sinful state "knowing good and evil" they were restricted from living eternally IN that state.
Iconoclast
Bonhoeffer would say that the “Tree of Life” is a metaphor for the very center of our life. The Tree of Life being in the center of garden meant that at our center we lived in unity with God – that our life had its center in God. Thus, in the garden before we fell we did eat of the Tree of Life – remember God did not forbid this – we lived in unity with God at our center. Our life comes from God.
It is only AFTER we ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil that eating of the Tree of Life became an issue. Bonhoeffer suggests that the serpent’s attack was really an attack on the Tree of Life – that only after gaining the knowledge of good and evil for ourselves – could we then reach to grab life for ourselves – could we then reach to take the center of our life on our own and thus live out of ourselves as the center for ever. And THIS then would be our Eternal Death. God could never then regain the center of our life – we would have banished Him forever from this.
For God to bar the way to the Tree of Life means that God has barred the way from us taking the center of our own life by force. Thus, God is still at our center, and is lovingly still holding up our “spiritual life” – he is preventing us from storming our own center right here and right now and making our current spiritual death eternal.
Again, this is all meant, in my opinion, to communicate spiritual truth. It says nothing about the nature of physical reality.
One question for you questioner:
If there was NO physical death before the fall then why would God have told them that they would surely die in the day they ate of the fruit? And why would the serpent then deny this to Adam and Eve? If there was no physical death how could this have meant anything to Adam and Eve?
Why doesn’t this suggest that Adam and Eve had experienced physical death – the death of animals, the death of plants (what did they eat)? And doesn’t this suggest that God was speaking metaphorically to them about death? But that the serpent then used the metaphorical truth of God to lie by presupposing it was a literal truth?
How can one use a metaphor to communicate meaning if there is no basis in physical reality – no basis in experience – to understand the meaning?
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Khan:
"Death as a result of less life from God* (to obstruct entropy)
and
Less life from God* as an enemy of God
* as a result of sin"
Even if we were to go with this, the essential problem remains. You'd still have to go with Greg's restorationist type view to even make THIS work. Do you see why?
By the way, what do you think of what I've been saying? My conclusions and all that.
Q
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Questioner
How about this? We can say that Paul had a pre-scientific understanding of the world (along with all the other Second Temple Judaism folks) and obviously didn't know about things like the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, evolution, the Big Bang, etc.
…
Paul was inaccurate. Nope, just wrong.
And insofar as Paul's teachings are Scriptural teachings, those Scriptural teachings are wrong, too.
Does that sound ok to everyone?
Iconoclast
I disagree with this. I think Paul was speaking ONLY spiritual truth – communicating through metaphors and is absolutely accurate.
I think the problem here is taking deep spiritual truth communicated through metaphors and then assuming that those metaphors are really literal. Or, rather, taking literal entailments of those metaphors that are not intended.
It is what many folks do when they take the metaphor “time is a river” as literal truth and then think that the past and future literally exist just as downstream and upstream do.
It is also what I think many folks do when they take the metaphor “satan is an entity” and confuse ha-satan with a literal evil entity.
And it is what the serpent did when God communicated the metaphorical truth that Adam and Eve would die in the day they ate of the fruit. And please don’t take offense at this statement – I do not mean to imply that you are like the serpent – that you are the devil or anything. In fact, I don’t believe there is a literal devil at all. In my view the “serpent” is metaphorical speech for Eve’s “serpent brain” – her “survival / fight or flight” mechanism.
It is the most natural thing in the world for us humans to conflate metaphorical truth and literal truth and I think that this is what is happening here.
thanks,
Iconoclast
"The benefit overran the merit the first day, and has overrun the merit ever since. The merit itself, so-called, I reckon part of the receiving." - Ralph Waldo Emerson | | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast:
"I understand Paul to be making a spiritual argument in order to speak spiritual truth. Paul has no intention, in my opinion, of giving us insight into the nature of physical reality. When we try to infer such things from what he says I believe we are on shaky ground."
Romans 8
18 I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory about to be revealed to us. 19 For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the children of God; 20 for the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning in labor pains until now; 23 and not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the first fruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly while we wait for adoption, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what is seen? 25 But if we hope for what we do not see, we wait for it with patience.
And I didn't even put the stuff in 1 Cor. 15.
Paul is vehemently concerned with BODILY resurrection…which deals with physical reality.
------------
Iconoclast:
"If there was NO physical death before the fall then why would God have told them that they would surely die in the day they ate of the fruit? And why would the serpent then deny this to Adam and Eve? If there was no physical death how could this have meant anything to Adam and Eve?
Why doesn’t this suggest that Adam and Eve had experienced physical death – the death of animals, the death of plants (what did they eat)? And doesn’t this suggest that God was speaking metaphorically to them about death? But that the serpent then used the metaphorical truth of God to lie by presupposing it was a literal truth?
How can one use a metaphor to communicate meaning if there is no basis in physical reality – no basis in experience – to understand the meaning?"
Frankly, it amazes me how literally you take the Genesis account…the serpent and everything. It's funny because it seems to me that you demythologize (ala Bultmann) everything else…like the existence of literal angels and demons.
But let's go with this use. There didn't have to be physical death for God to convey his meaning. Who's to say that God didn't say MORE than what the story conveys? Think about it. Are you going to say that the ONLY conversations that God ever had with Adam and Eve were the ones reported in the Creation story?? That would be as bad as saying that the only times Jesus taught about the "good Samaritan" was the SINGLE time reported in the Gospels.
It is more than feasible to think that God could have talked to the Adamic couple at length about many different things…including an elaboration of death.
Q
| | Back to Top | | |
|
1Heart
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2004
Total Posts : 1128
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:25 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by Questioner
Page 302
"To be sure, according to Scripture the creation was originally created good, and the glory of God is still evident in it (Gen 1; Rom 1:20). But something else--something frightfully wicked--is evident in it as well. Of their own free will, Satan and other spiritual beings rebelled against God in the primordial past and now abuse their God-given authority over aspects of creation. The one who 'holds the power of DEATH--that is, the devil' (Heb 2:14) exercises a pervasive structural, diabolical influence to the point that the entire creation is in 'bondage to decay' (Rom 8:21). If this scenario is correct, then the pain-ridden, bloodthirsty, sinister and hostile character of nature makes sense. If not, then dispite the valid constributions of a number of thinkers on 'natural' evil, the demonic character of nature must remain largely inexplicable."
Satan holds the power of death and destruction. Death, like Satan, is seen as the enemy, Scripturally speaking.
All this comes from the origin of sin (ie the fall of angels)
See the axioms in play?
See the "restorationist" view in play?
To say that death (and carnivorousness, while we are at it) is a natural, God-given process of temporal biological existence is to counter ALL of this. To say it is to strongly counter Scripture.
Takers?
Q
It's been awhile since I've read it, and it was tough chugging for me, but this sounds like the "Red in Tooth and Claw" chapter. The whole thing fascinated me, the realization that nature as well is controlled by demonic forces (largely anyway).
This thought keeps us from jumping to the painful, sometimes destructive conclusion that if some natural disaster occurs, that it was the wrath of God. On the other hand, we see this in the OT, so I can see where people jump so easily to that. But we do not see it in the NT, right? The focus changes fromt the law to grace. I do see scriptural evidence that nature was never intended to be as it is now, and that one day will be restored to what it is meant to be. Jesus came to save all of humanity, and creation. The cross has a much broader scope of meaning than I had realized before reading this book.
God Bless,
Jo-Anne (reading fast...back later)
"Sometimes all we can do is go back to the character of God, and drop anchor there."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Questioner
Registered Member
Date Joined Aug 2004
Total Posts : 48
| Posted 8/21/2004 6:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconclast (speaking about Paul possibly being wrong):
"I disagree with this. I think Paul was speaking ONLY spiritual truth – communicating through metaphors and is absolutely accurate.
I think the problem here is taking deep spiritual truth communicated through metaphors and then assuming that those metaphors are really literal. Or, rather, taking literal entailments of those metaphors that are not intended."
So, do you think that, given all the chapters that I've cited, that Paul KNOWINGLY was only dealing with ONLY the idea of spiritual death (and NOT physical death) as the enemy of God? AND that Paul wasn't concerned with physical reality at all?
Just making sure. (looking over Romans 5 and 8, and 1 Cor 15 again)
Q
| | Back to Top | | |
| 129 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:22 AM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|