 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 10/11/2005 10:42 AM (GMT -6) |   | Ok, so I've been looking and looking at this passage, and as far as I can tell it affirms that Paul thought phyiscal death was a natural and good thing. Is there something I'm missing somewhere?
Somebody said...
15:35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body will they come?” 15:36 Fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies. 15:37 And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare seed23—perhaps of wheat or something else. 15:38 But God gives it a body just as he planned, and to each of the seeds a body of its own. 15:39 All flesh is not the same: People have one flesh, animals have another, birds and fish another.24 15:40 And there are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies. The glory of the heavenly body is one sort and the earthly another. 15:41 There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon and another glory of the stars, for star differs from star in glory.
15:42 It is the same with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.25 15:43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 15:44 it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. 15:45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living person”;26 the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. 15:46 However, the spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and then the spiritual. 15:47 The first man is from the earth, made of dust; the second man is from heaven.
So - what happens to a seed? Before it grows into a plant it must die and become something new. This is parallel to the situation of humans - the first human became a 'living soul' (implying him as he was created, not as fallen) which is the seed, and the resurrected human raised in glory is the equivalent of the plant. Am I reading this right? The huge number of YECs that exist and affirm that we were originally imortal in the world makes me think maybe I'm missing something. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/11/2005 7:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Mark: He doesn't seem to be simply saying that the resurrection body is different, but that it is necessary to exit the natural one via death to get to it.
Jeff: The opening statements (15:35-36) seem to suggest that the questions of the doubters that Paul is addressing are 1) how is ressurection possible ("How are the dead raised?") and 2) what the new body will be like ("With what kind of body will they come?"). To answer 1), Paul may simply be directing their attention to an analogy of nature to show that the idea is not patently absurd.
It is true that the natural death of the mortal body is what necessitates ressurection. But I don't see how the context demands that ressurection is the only way God can make an immortal body of that KIND or that God's purpose could ONLY be fulfilled by ressurection. An open theist could argue that had the Fall not occurred, ressurection may have been altogether unnecessary, as might Christ's atonement, itself. Especially since Paul starts off by saying "...for as in Adam ALL DIE." And unless we go with universalism, it's hard to see how EVERYONE'S death is a good thing.
It may be that death is used in more than one way in the chapter, but that, too, doesn't seem evident on a superficial reading. As problematic as it is on non-biblical grounds, the YEC interpretation does seem like the simplest textual explanation. If I remember correctly, that's why Meph finds it easier to conclude that Paul is wrong on the matter. So it's not just the YEC'ers that see the passage that way.
As for YEC'ers believing in an original immortality, I'm not aware of that. What I've read from others, though, is that humans, per the account, could have continued in life IF they continued to eat of the tree of life. I.e., BOTH continued life AND death were possible choices for them.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/11/2005 10:12:53 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 10/12/2005 3:08 AM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...Mark: He doesn't seem to be simply saying that the resurrection body is different, but that it is necessary to exit the natural one via death to get to it. Jeff: The opening statements (15:35-36) seem to suggest that the questions of the doubters that Paul is addressing are 1) how is ressurection possible ("How are the dead raised?"  and 2) what the new body will be like ("With what kind of body will they come?" . To answer 1), Paul may simply be directing their attention to an analogy of nature to show that the idea is not patently absurd.
OK, so what meaning do you draw out of the phrase "Fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies." I rather assumed he was directing it against a kind of immortality of the soul doctrine.
jefscott said...
It is true that the natural death of the mortal body is what necessitates ressurection. But I don't see how the context demands that ressurection is the only way God can make an immortal body of that KIND or that God's purpose could ONLY be fulfilled by ressurection.
No, certainly I agree with that
jefscott said...
An open theist could argue that had the Fall not occurred, ressurection may have been altogether unnecessary, as might Christ's atonement, itself. Especially since Paul starts off by saying "...for as in Adam ALL DIE." And unless we go with universalism, it's hard to see how EVERYONE'S death is a good thing. It may be that death is used in more than one way in the chapter, but that, too, doesn't seem evident on a superficial reading.
Hmm. I agree it's not there in a superficial reading.
jefscott said...
As problematic as it is on non-biblical grounds, the YEC interpretation does seem like the simplest textual explanation. If I remember correctly, that's why Meph finds it easier to conclude that Paul is wrong on the matter. So it's not just the YEC'ers that see the passage that way.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/12/2005 9:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Mark: OK, so what meaning do you draw out of the phrase "Fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies." I rather assumed he was directing it against a kind of immortality of the soul doctrine.
Jeff: I had guessed that he was drawing their attention to an ananology of nature that demonstrates that the idea of life-from-death is not absurd. Christ seems to be doing something similar in John 12:23-25. In the latter passage, the implausibility seems to be that of Christs's death. For they hadn't imagined that the Messiah would have to die. Christ argues, to the contrary, that his death is necessary for FRUIT to result. I.e., a good follows his death, just as in the natural case.
But in Corinthians, he seems to be arguing about the question of "How are the dead raised?" Whether they believed in the immortality of the soul or not, I can't see why they would ask this question unless they thought there was something absurd about the very notion of ressurection. And that this supposed absurdity was the grounds of their disbelief in their own ressurection. Perhaps, since they could only imagine flesh that was corruptible, they could not see ressurection as anything but anti-climatic. Some argue, to this day, that ressurection seems superfluous--that a spiritual post-mortem existence is what is important.
Assuming that Paul was addressing a belief in the immortality of the soul, how does the statement, "Fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies," imply that the YEC interpretation is invalid? Perhaps Paul is emphasizing the phrase "unless it dies." Then, if he WAS addressing the immortality of the soul, he may thereby be turning the argument around to suggest that THEIR view is not the only possible one. This would explain why he begins the statement with "Fool!" For he could have just been showing the paucity of their imagination and responding somewhat harshly since they discounted his teaching without considering all the logical possibilities. This could be his initial argumentative approach leading up to his conclusion that the grave DOES have victory UNTIL the ressurection (1 Cor 15:54).
So I'm not seeing what would lead us to the conclusion that Paul is saying that death is somehow a good thing, anymore than Christ was saying in John that his own death, per se, was a good thing. It's just as logical to see him as meaning that his death is a NECESSARY thing, given the Fall. The subsequent FRUIT of his death is the GOOD thing. But the YEC'ers would agree with that, I think.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/12/2005 12:25 PM (GMT -6) | | I think there needs to be two things noted here. First, it was never God's desire that we die in sin. Second, our fleshly manner—our humanity—regardless of a pre- or post-fall is something that cannot enter into an eternal relationship with God, if by eternal we are going to encompass something of a spiritual body, as will be the case at the resurrection.
Looking at these two issues, then, strikes a single chord about death; not cessation of existence, but separation from current existence. Had there been no fall, we could have, technically, lived on forever...theologically speaking. But if there were ever to be a transition into the context of a spiritual body, one would have to be transformed. Hence, the issue of the rapture is more than just the resurrection; it is the transformation that takes place AT THE SAME TIME as the resurrection. Obviously, though, if there were no sin, there would be no need of a resurrection, only a transformation.
Death, then, in I Corinthians has that double-edged sword effect, similar to the Law; it is an enemy to the soul but it is good in that it points to separation from the human confinement which limits relationship with God.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 10/12/2005 12:34 PM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
Jeff: I had guessed that he was drawing their attention to an ananology of nature that demonstrates that the idea of life-from-death is not absurd. Christ seems to be doing something similar in John 12:23-25. In the latter passage, the implausibility seems to be that of Christs's death. For they hadn't imagined that the Messiah would have to die. Christ argues, to the contrary, that his death is necessary for FRUIT to result. I.e., a good follows his death, just as in the natural case.
Yes, ok, but I think it's important how he phrases it 'unless is dies' not the postive 'although it dies' he is showing not only the actuality of the death but the necessity in the case of the seed.
[quote]Assuming that Paul was addressing a belief in the immortality of the soul, how does the statement, "Fool! What you sow will not come to life unless it dies," imply that the YEC interpretation is invalid? Perhaps Paul is emphasizing the phrase "unless it dies." Then, if he WAS addressing the immortality of the soul, he may thereby be turning the argument around to suggest that THEIR view is not the only possible one. This would explain why he begins the statement with "Fool!" For he could have just been showing the paucity of their imagination and responding somewhat harshly since they discounted his teaching without considering all the logical possibilities. This could be his initial argumentative approach leading up to his conclusion that the grave DOES have victory UNTIL the ressurection (1 Cor 15:54).
Hmm. The immortality of the soul thing came to mind because there seem to be those who are mocking the idea of a physical resurrection, and I think that it would tend to be those who prefer some kind of spiritual afterlife. He responds by showing how a new body would work but also that death is an act of sowing rather than of escaping.
[quote]So I'm not seeing what would lead us to the conclusion that Paul is saying that death is somehow a good thing, anymore than Christ was saying in John that his own death, per se, was a good thing. It's just as logical to see him as meaning that his death is a NECESSARY thing, given the Fall. The subsequent FRUIT of his death is the GOOD thing. But the YEC'ers would agree with that, I think.
I think that if you look at the later parts of the passage as to how God has given each thing a body appropriate to its nature etc. and includes the natural, apparently perishable body as something given by God in that initial act of creation. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/12/2005 1:25 PM (GMT -6) | | | Mark, I think every thing you said above seems logically possible (though I'm not sure it's necessary, yet) on the first read. Except, i.e., the part about the perishable-ness of Adam's body. For the tree of life provides a different way to look at that. However, your view would seem to imply that the Fall was intended from the beginning, since you seem to be defining the creation of Adam as a "sowing" that was INTENDED to be followed by the "reaping" of ressurection. This, in turn, would seem to imply that much of open-theistic thought is wrong. Would you agree? If I'm right, I guess the question would turn into a debate about extra-contextual matters and their respective weight.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 10/12/2005 1:31:17 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 10/12/2005 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | jefscott said...
Mark, I think every thing you said above seems logically possible (though I'm not sure it's necessary, yet) on the first read. Except, i.e., the part about the perishable-ness of Adam's body. For the tree of life provides a different way to look at that. However, your view would seem to imply that the Fall was intended from the beginning, since you seem to be defining the creation of Adam as a "sowing" that was INTENDED to be followed by the "reaping" of ressurection. This, in turn, would seem to imply that much of open-theistic thought is wrong. Would you agree? If I'm right, I guess the question would turn into a debate about extra-contextual matters and their respective weight.
I'm not trying to define the fall as intended, no, it was rather the original, good, creation that was a 'sowing' which would then come to fruition at some later stage in some kind of resurrection (though one which is now only made possible through Christ's atoning sacrifice).
What do you think? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/12/2005 4:01 PM (GMT -6) | | Mark: I'm not trying to define the fall as intended, no, it was rather the original, good, creation that was a 'sowing' which would then come to fruition at some later stage in some kind of resurrection (though one which is now only made possible through Christ's atoning sacrifice).
What do you think?
Jeff: I think that's a real logical possibility. But death, on this view, is still less-than-ideal. And since, per Paul, some will be changed as opposed to resurrected, I'm not sure we can KNOW that "some kind of resurrection" would have obtained had the Fall not occurred. Nor am I sure that OT saints will even receive immortal bodies. If they do, why does John speak of those eating of the tree of life in the new Jerusalem?
Regardless, I would agree that the distinction between the phrases "unless it dies" and "although it dies" does need to be accounted for somehow. Maybe Paul considers being clothed with immortality as a kind of death of the mortal body, even apart the normal experience of the death which is followed by resurrection.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 10/13/2005 4:04 AM (GMT -6) | | | Hmm, I looked up Gordon Fee's commentary on this passage and he makes a point which seems to be missed in most translations and that is that the phrases would be better translated "You, what you sow" - so it's not a generic you it's a specific you. That makes what I'm trying to get out of the passage a little more hazy though I'm still trying to work out how it fits in. | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 10/13/2005 1:09 PM (GMT -6) | | | So....does anyone else have any thoughts on this? Mephi it sure would be cool to hear from you if you're around... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/13/2005 1:36 PM (GMT -6) | |
jefscott said...
Yeah, I looked it up and it is that way in the greek. That seems to put more weight back on the analogy argument. And now that you've got me thinking about it, it seems like Paul is answering the question, "How are the dead raised," by arguing that the NEW body is radically DIFFERENT than the original one--SO different that nothing short of the death of the original body can account for the change. I.e., it is a total REPLACEMENT of the original mortal body with a new immortal one. This is in contrast to the Eden account of the soulish body that COULD obtain or MAINTAIN life by eating of the tree of life. The new kind of body will be INTRINSICALLY immortal.
I agree, as I also posted similarly above.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/13/2005 3:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Mark: Oops, Starkman, I totally missed your first post, ...
Jeff: ME TOO!! Sorry, Keith!
Mark: ...though I'm not totally convinced by "Obviously, though, if there were no sin, there would be no need of a resurrection, only a transformation."
Jeff: If resurrection means the standing back up from the grave, then it would seem that ressurection requires death (or does resurrection mean MORE or OTHER than that?). But death is what Paul seems to be saying was the "enemy," that ENTERED by sin. Seemingly, it is LIFE, whether by maintenance (i.e., tree of life) or transformation, that is what God originally intended for Adam/Eve. What's the alternative? A different definition of resurrection or something else?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 10/13/2005 4:25 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff: If resurrection means the standing back up from the grave, then it would seem that ressurection requires death (or does resurrection mean MORE or OTHER than that?). But death is what Paul seems to be saying was the "enemy," that ENTERED by sin. Seemingly, it is LIFE, whether by maintenance (i.e., tree of life) or transformation, that is what God originally intended for Adam/Eve. What's the alternative? A different definition of resurrection or something else?
Mark: OK, so resurrection requires death, I'll give you that. I'll skip your second point for the moment by saying that perhaps what Paul is referring to here is not physical death in and of itself. Now, the next bit I find very interesting - we come down to the question of what the tree of life meant for Adam and Eve. It is certain that if they took and ate from this tree they would live forever. Now, turn back from that picture of the tree of life and look at the words of Christ "whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die" "he who believes in Me has everlasting life" - the believer has taken and eaten of Christ and shall now live forever, he has life and will not die. This life which the believer now posesses and shall continue to posess passes straight through physical death as if it were an irrelevance; we have life with God now, we go to be with Christ at death and we shall be resurrected on the last day. I would like to suggest, then, that what the tree of life offered then is precisely what Christ offers anew to us now. The unbeliever has very little hope past the end of this life, but for those in Christ "death" at the end of this life is no death at all because it leads onwards toward something more.Post Edited (markporter) : 10/13/2005 4:29:28 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
markporter
Fire over Oxford
Date Joined Oct 2003
Total Posts : 263
| Posted 10/13/2005 4:53 PM (GMT -6) | | | I guess I should point you to a paper I'm referring to quite a bit as I think about this - have a look at http://www.saintjoe.edu/~dept14/environment/rogero/final_darwin_paper.htm and it develops the idea of what death might mean - I'm trying to use the Corinthians passage in conjunction with these kinds of ideas to make sense of what it is saying. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 10/13/2005 4:59 PM (GMT -6) | | | Again, remembering that death is not cessation of existence but only separation, there then can be "death" in transformation of a sinless being's body from fleshly to spiritual; the sinless being is separated, thus experiencing death, from his previous fleshly existence and transformed into the new spiritual existence upon transformation. Of course it is simultaneous—a transformation (rapture) as well as a resurrection, but not quite in the sense that we will be resurrected today; for that will encompass the totality of our being from sinful to perfection.
Death in the situation of a sinless being would not be the enemy. It would only be a term describing the mechanics. Death is, however, the enemy for sinful beings; that they die physical and spiritual deaths, in that they become physically and spiritually separated from God, was never meant to be. That is why death is an enemy to us today.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us?Post Edited (Starkman) : 10/13/2005 5:02:25 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:16 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 |
|
|