 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/4/2004 9:16 AM (GMT -6) |   | Iconoclast-
Can you first tell me what you think is a biblical understanding of reincarnation? This would help distinguish what you have in mind from classic Eastern versions of reincarnation. As I understand it, there is no one view on reincarnation. It first appears in the Brahmana writings and then passed from Hinduism to Buddhism and Taoism, undergoing changes with each step. There never has been real agreement across the board on just ‘what’ survives death and ends up being reincarnated, whether it is personal or impersonal (impersonal in Hinduism, personal in Plato), etc.. In Eastern spirituality I think the gist is that one reaches higher levels of perfection through reincarnation. Specific sins were even assigned specific reincarnate states. For example, a person who steals food becomes a rat, one who steals grain becomes a locust, one who commits “unnatural vice” becomes a village pig, etc. In Plato successive reincarnations were the journey which the preexistent soul took to escape (via gnosis/knowledge) the imperfect physical world to arrive at perfect being.
In arguing for reincarnation as biblical, are you also arguing for this whole structure of rewards and punishments as biblical?
How is your understanding of reincarnation the same as those found in Eastern spirituality (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism) or Plato? How is it different? If you reject aspects of any of these forms of reincarnation, on what biblical grounds do you reject them?
If I can get a handle on your view, then maybe we can just discuss that rather than trying to discuss all the views out there. That might be too much. Sounds to me like you want to avoid the rewards/punishment approach to gain perfection found in Eastern spirituality and just say that God, when he wants to (as opposed to having established a law of karma which applies to every human), can hand-pick a person (presumably a righteous person—God wouldn’t send Hitler back to us in reincarnate form would he?) to do a specific job for him. This person would, presumably possess compatibilistic free will so that God can guarantee that the job gets done. Right? Is that the idea? God couldn’t risk having the forerunner to the Messiah screw things up, and he can’t constrain the will of a “fresh” human being because they possess libertarian free will, so what option does God have? He picks somebody who already ran the race and won and sends them back (possessing compatibilistic free will) to do x, y, and z. Beyond this, how much of the Eastern and Platonic views of reincarnation do you want to maintain?
Tom  | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/4/2004 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom
Can you first tell me what you think is a biblical understanding of reincarnation?
Iconoclast
I have no energy to promote some particular view regarding reincarnation mostly because I don’t have any credible evidence that there even is such a thing. At the same time I don’t rule out all forms of reincarnation because I don’t have any evidence for that either.
Tom
In arguing for reincarnation as biblical, are you also arguing for this whole structure of rewards and punishments as biblical?
Iconoclast
My understanding of the basic concept of the law of Karma is simply that it is the law of cause and effect. It is biblical in that it is the same as an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons for several generations. We are all subject to the law of Karma – the wages of sin is death.
Now Christianity just like Hinduism would say that there is a greater law than the law of Karma. The greater law is the law of love. Love overcomes Karma. When we choose to love we abrogate the law of Karma – we are no longer subject to the law of Karma – our sin no longer leads to death.
This is easy to see in that we all understand that if we disrespect someone they will disrespect us back. Can you respect someone who disrespects you? No. And when they disrespect you back will you then respect them? No. This is the law of Karma.
The law of Love overcomes the law of Karma in that when you truly and completely die to your disrespect of another – when you love them, when you respect them – you now allow them to let go of their disrespect for you. You abrogate the law of Karma. The law of Karma is simply the law of judgement. The judgement you make is the judgement you shall receive.
Ultimately the law of Karma in the absence of the force of the law of Love will always take its effect. Not always right now but always ultimately and always within ourselves – the wages of sin is death.
Tom
Sounds to me like you want to avoid the rewards/punishment approach to gain perfection found in Eastern spirituality and just say that God, when he wants to (as opposed to having established a law of karma which applies to every human), can hand-pick a person (presumably a righteous person—God wouldn’t send Hitler back to us in reincarnate form would he?) to do a specific job for him.
Iconoclast
I think there is a rewards/punishment approach to gain perfection. I think that God did establish the law of Karma which applies to every human. I also think that we are all being crushed under its burden everyday because we are simply lousy at living up to it.
Think about it for a second. If we actually were really good at following the law of Karma what would that look like? I would suggest that the better we got at following the law of Karma the more we would start living the law of Love. Isn’t the law of Karma simply: do unto others as you would have them do unto you?
The law of Karma in my view is a subset of the law of Love. It is the grim reality when we fail to keep the law of Love.
Tom
This person would, presumably possess compatibilistic free will so that God can guarantee that the job gets done. Right? Is that the idea? God couldn’t risk having the forerunner to the Messiah screw things up, and he can’t constrain the will of a “fresh” human being because they possess libertarian free will, so what option does God have? He picks somebody who already ran the race and won and sends them back (possessing compatibilistic free will) to do x, y, and z.
Iconoclast
God might send Hitler back if He wanted someone to do the exact opposite of His will, which seems very hard to imagine why He might want this.
If God wants to make sure His will gets done on earth in some particular task I see no reason why He wouldn’t send someone back who had already chosen to do His will – someone who absolutely loved doing His will. I don’t believe in this concept of “compatibilistic free will”. To me this is an outright contradiction. In my view a John the Baptist who was Elijah come back to earth is a John the Baptist with creative free will. A free will that creatively does the will of God because he loves to do the will of God – not because God somehow makes him do His will.
Tom
Beyond this, how much of the Eastern and Platonic views of reincarnation do you want to maintain?
Iconoclast
I have no desire or energy to maintain any of it. I do have a desire to explore the possibilities.
We know that Paul talked about seven levels of heaven. What could this mean? Could it mean that there are levels of learning – levels of becoming beyond this earth? Is going to heaven a quantum phenomenon? Are some greater in heaven than others? Are there different “worlds” in heaven where we continue to learn to love each other more deeply? What about the verse talking about the person who just barely gets into heaven (as though they are scorched – or something like that)?
What about a 3 year old child who dies? Has this child had a chance to choose love? It seems like this child hasn’t to me. So, does this child go to heaven? If so, then what about this notion that love must be chosen? If not, then certainly God wouldn’t send this child to hell so what happens to this child? Annihilation? Why would God do that? Why not send this child back to earth to give him or her the opportunity to choose to love? Is there a problem with this biblically? And if not, what are the limits of this sort of thing? Is there a clear bifurcation point like in chaos theory or quantum mechanics? Once the bifurcation point is reached then a person’s free will is solidified beyond “repair” but before that point the person gets another opportunity?
There is one thing I would like to maintain – we know next to nothing about the reality that God has created. When I look around at the amazing complexity and richness of the earth and start thinking about what we will encounter in heaven I am convinced that we ain’t seen nothing yet. I am convinced that our learning and growth is infinite – that this earth is a small part of our learning and growth. Just think, one million years from now how will we look back on our brief time on earth?
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/5/2004 5:10 AM (GMT -6) | | Iconoclast: I have no energy to promote some particular view regarding reincarnation mostly because I don’t have any credible evidence that there even is such a thing. At the same time I don’t rule out all forms of reincarnation because I don’t have any evidence for that either.
Tom: Would you rule out ANY form or understanding of reincarnation?
Iconoclast: My understanding of the basic concept of the law of Karma is simply that it is the law of cause and effect. It is biblical in that it is the same as an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth and the sins of the father shall be visited upon the sons for several generations. We are all subject to the law of Karma – the wages of sin is death.
Tom: In Eastern religious forms of reincarnation (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese Taoism) the wages of sin is NOT death, but rather reincarnation in lower, baser forms of life.
Iconoclast: Now Christianity just like Hinduism would say that there is a greater law than the law of Karma. The greater law is the law of love. Love overcomes Karma.
Tom: Yes. Well, I can’t find the phrase “law of love” in Scripture. But I gather that you’re referring to (Jo 13.34) Jesus’ “new commandment” that we love one another. Right. Paul develops it a bit more theologically. For example, in Rom 7 the "law of sin" which dwells in our members is remedied not by getting it right on our own through successive stages of reincarnation (we are unable to free ourselves) but rather by the “law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” (Rom 8.2).
Iconoclast: When we choose to love we abrogate the law of Karma – we are no longer subject to the law of Karma – our sin no longer leads to death.
Tom: Two things. First, again, in reincarnation as understood in the East, the law of Karma does not lead to death in the biblical sense, it leads only to coming back in lower forms of life. And secondly, we are unable to love on our own. If given a chance to live a thousand reincarnate lives we still wouldn’t get it right. As I understand Jesus and Paul, this is our predicament. We need help from outside, not just more tries. Is there nothing about this effort-based approach to getting it right upon which reincarnation (in the East) is based that you find incompatible with Christ’s mission and message?
Iconoclast: The law of Love overcomes the law of Karma in that when you truly and completely die to your disrespect of another…
Tom: And in your view, could a human being completely die to self on her own if just given enough reincarnate tries at it?
Iconoclast: …when you love them, when you respect them – you now allow them to let go of their disrespect for you. You abrogate the law of Karma. The law of Karma is simply the law of judgement. The judgement you make is the judgement you shall receive.
Tom: And of course biblically speaking there IS no unqualified or impersonal “law of love” (as the law of karma is understood to be impersonal in Eastern spirituality). It is perhaps the “law of life in Christ”—a personal, qualified principle of life that flows out of relationship with the personal God based on faith. There’s nothing of this is Eastern forms of reincarnation. On the contrary, the worldview out of which reincarnation was given birth was works-based, non-relational (that is, the ultimate truth was not a person and so salvation was not viewed in relational terms), and not accountable in the ultimate biblical sense of “death as wages for sin.” As I understand it you kept at it till you got it right.
Iconoclast: I think there is a rewards/punishment approach to gain perfection. I think that God did establish the law of Karma which applies to every human. I also think that we are all being crushed under its burden everyday because we are simply lousy at living up to it.
Tom: Can we get better at living up to it through successive reincarnate states? The more tries the better we get?
Iconoclast: Think about it for a second. If we actually were really good at following the law of Karma…
Tom: Yes, let’s think about it. We are not at all good at living up to works-based laws or approaches to placing ourselves in relationship to God. Is it because 70 some odd years is not enough time or because we are constitutionally at some level out of wack? I’m just wondering, Iconoclast, what’s stopping you from concluding that reincarnation as a works-based way of fixing what’s wrong with us is a perfectly biblical approach to living?
Iconoclast: The law of Karma in my view is a subset of the law of Love.
Tom: Is reincarnation in your view a subset of the law of love?
Iconoclast: It [the law of karma] is the grim reality when we fail to keep the law of Love.
Tom: And what might that “grim reality” be in biblical terms? Is it not death, ultimate death? Is it not facing God after death (Heb. 9) an giving an account for our choices? Is it not accountability in eternal terms? If so, on what basis will you replace this grim reality with the alternative grim reality of learning to get it right through successive reincarnate lives (lower or higher forms of life based on our performance)?
Iconoclast: God might send Hitler back if He wanted someone to do the exact opposite of His will, which seems very hard to imagine why He might want this.
Tom: Only “very hard”? Is it not in fact “impossible” for you to imagine this?
Iconoclast: If God wants to make sure His will gets done on earth in some particular task I see no reason why He wouldn’t send someone back who had already chosen to do His will – someone who absolutely loved doing His will. I don’t believe in this concept of “compatibilistic free will”. To me this is an outright contradiction. In my view a John the Baptist who was Elijah come back to earth is a John the Baptist with creative free will. A free will that creatively does the will of God because he loves to do the will of God – not because God somehow makes him do His will.
Tom: Those who act as God desires out of a compatibilistic free will THEY themselves have formed over time are not being “made to do God’s will” by any force outside themselves. They have freely choosing themselves over time and now have the joy of choosing unfailingly to love God. I don’t get how your “creative free will” differs from compatibilistic free will. My question still remains. What guarantee does God have that reincarnate Elijah will not choose to do the opposite of God’s will if Elijah’s will is not compatibilistically oriented toward God? If there’s no guarantee that Elijah will not fail, then what advantage is there to sending Elijah back over letting John (the non-reincarnated Elijah, John) have his own independent go at it? Either one might screw things up. Seems to me the whole reason for sending Elijah back to guarantee an outcome is because Elijah comes back with a will (however) different from a fresh human being.
Iconoclast: I have no desire or energy to maintain any of it. I do have a desire to explore the possibilities.
Tom: I’m wondering whether or not there are any so-called possibilities you would not want to maintain.
Iconoclast: We know that Paul talked about seven levels of heaven. What could this mean?
Tom: Whatever it might mean, it wouldn’t entail a works-based approach to righteousness repeated over and over again. There are seven heavens, but Jesus still died, salvation is still by faith, and death is still the wages of sin. 
Iconoclast: Are some greater in heaven than others?
Tom: No doubt some are. But I don’t imagine the differences entail repeating works-based approaches to righteousness until those who are “less great” get it right and become “as great” as others.
Iconoclast: What about the verse talking about the person who just barely gets into heaven (as though they are scorched – or something like that)?
Tom: What about it? Seems to me this would rule OUT incarnation. If those who fall short are reincarnated to improve their score, the question of “barely getting in” to heaven never arises. You only “barely make it” if the death is a genuine dead-line.
Iconoclast: What about a 3 year old child who dies? Has this child had a chance to choose love? It seems like this child hasn’t to me. So, does this child go to heaven? If so, then what about this notion that love must be chosen?
Tom: This sort of case and the reasons for considering it are entirely different than what lies behind reincarnation as traditionally understood. Entirely. Now, I’m not really sure where I stand on the post-mortem options, but whatever might be this girl’s future, I don’t see it amounting to anything like getting sent back to THIS earthly existence as a fruit-fly, a Shetland pony, or a sacred cow. Can you at least agree me on this much? Persons, IF they are reincarnate, are reincarnate as PERSONS, not animals. Agreed?
Iconoclast: If not, then certainly God wouldn’t send this child to hell so what happens to this child?
Tom: Certainly not hell.
Iconoclast: Annihilation? Why would God do that? Why not send this child back to earth to give him or her the opportunity to choose to love?
Tom: Let’s explore THIS possibility. But would you want also to argue FOR the view that if the reincarnate girls lives to be 70 and doesn’t choose love then that God sends and resends her back until she DOES choose love? Is this a “possibility” you would want to argue for or against?
Iconoclast: There is one thing I would like to maintain – we know next to nothing about the reality that God has created. When I look around at the amazing complexity and richness of the earth and start thinking about what we will encounter in heaven I am convinced that we ain’t seen nothing yet.
Tom: Me too!
Iconoclast: I am convinced that our learning and growth is infinite…
Tom: And I’m convinced also that our learning and growth are not works-based (regardless of whether or not we get a second chance if we die at birth or when we’re one or two) and that there’s a finish line we ultimately cross. Now, both of these (faith based living and ultimate accountability) are incompatible with traditional forms of reincarnation.
How about this:
1. Reincarnation as understood in Eastern spirituality as an unending journey of successively reincarnate lives spent in the obtaining of perfection, including promotion to well-doing and demotion as punishment for evil is to be rejected on grounds that it is incompatible with a biblical view of freedom and moral responsibility (Heb. 9), and redemption of the human person by grace through faith in Christ. If redemption of the soul is achieved through belief in Christ, it cannot be achieved by us through improved behavior via successive stages of reincarnate forms. Reincarnation as understood in Eastern spirituality undermines Christ as the ultimate redeemer of the soul as well as faith as the resignation of human effort as the basis upon which the soul achieves perfection and trust in the finality of Christ’s sacrifice.
2. Reincarnation as understood in Plato and Neo-Platonism as stages by which the human self successively frees itself from material imprisonment through increased ‘knowledge’ and ultimately returns to it pre-incarnate immaterial and pure existence, is to be rejected on the same grounds as those listed above which disqualify the Eastern understandings of reincarnation as being compatible with a biblical view of the work or Christ and salvation by faith. To these one may add another reason for rejecting the Platonic view of reincarnation that it views the physical world as fundamentally evil (i.e., gnostic) and thus something which needs to be shed in the pursuit of perfection. It is not a biblical view of creation to view the physical world as evil.
What about 3 year old babies who didn’t get to choose love? Might their case be sufficiently different from the above two? Let's discuss the options.
Jump in ya’ll!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/5/2004 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika-
I'd seen these verses except for Gen. 3.19. There are others too that in my view pretty much close the door to reincarnation. But I share Iconoclast's concern for holding consistently to "love requires freedom" as a metaphysical principle and how we square this with the death of those (infants, mentally handicapped, etc.) who are unable to choose responsibly for or against God's love. It does seem that if this is a metaphysical principle, then something has to be arranged for this class of persons. Do they go to hell? Are they annihilated? Do they get a free ticket to glory without having to choose (which is the same as saying "love requires freedom" isn't really a metaphysical principle)? Do they appear on the other side of the grave fully adult sane individuals and THERE get a one-time chance to choose (post-mortem evangelism)? Or do they come back here AS PERSONS (not fruit-flies or cows) and live out their choices like the rest of us.
I honestly don't see anything fundamentally wrong with the idea that such people come back until such a time as they are able to establish their own morally responsible choice. I'm not comfortable with it, but I'm open to it. I have some questions about "how" such a thing would occur. Where do these souls go to stand in line for the next available birth-slot to be filled? Given certain views of life as a continuum, how are such souls reinserted into the process where parents both contribute a life-stream (I'm gettin wierd!)? That is, how do we avoid having two souls/spirits (one reincarnate and one not) in one body in such cases? It all sounds pretty bazaar.
How do you reconcile the metaphysical principle that "love requires freedom" with the destiny of those who die having never exercised their wills?
Iconoclast, this calls for one Bordeaux and one California PLUS Boursin cheese!
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/5/2004 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/5/2004 8:04 AM (GMT -6) | | | We must not add to scripture in order to justify what we believe love to be. Making our philosophy consistant is not as important as following scripture consistantly. There is nothing within scripture that supports reincarnation; it is just the opposite. I would suggest that we stay silent where the Bible is silent. At least in terms of what we hold to be true. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/5/2004 8:28 AM (GMT -6) | | Yes, this is true, but my point was simply that we should not form opinions that go against what the Bible states the opposite of (for instance, what happens in life after death), in order to justify a philsopical opinion. To hold to reincarnation in any form in order to justify a philsophical opinion is wrong because the Bible does not teach it. In that sense it would be better to be silent.
Perhaps I am saying it wrong. I believe we should silent as far as holding fast to doctrinal beliefs that have no biblical basis.
...not opinions that are contrary to scripture... | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/5/2004 8:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Plus, I simply think, in the end, we should trust that a loving God will deal with the situation in a loving way, rather than trying to figure out something that really has no answer...though it can be fun trying to find one...   | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 1/5/2004 8:41 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 1/5/2004 9:59 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika-
Is that fire burning your butt and why you're wagging your tail so frantically?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/5/2004 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Just breez'n by...
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
I'd seen these verses except for Gen. 3.19. There are others too that in my view pretty much close the door to reincarnation.
AMEN, TGB.
I'll expand that below as per "immortality of the soul" VERSUS The Resurrection of the Dead. (Can't have both. Christianity ONLY teaches the later. More below.
.
quote:
Originally posted by TGB
Tom: In Eastern religious forms of reincarnation (Hinduism, Buddhism, and Chinese Taoism) the wages of sin is NOT death, but rather reincarnation in lower, baser forms of life.
Again, "dead" on the money! Add pagan Greek to the list too.
.
quote:
Originally posted by honorman
We must not add to scripture in order to justify what we believe love to be. Making our philosophy consistant is not as important as following scripture consistantly. There is nothing within scripture that supports reincarnation; it is just the opposite. I would suggest that we stay silent where the Bible is silent. At least in terms of what we hold to be true.
Amen!
.
quote:
Originally posted by Laika
I don't think there's a taxi stand of souls/spirits lined up waiting for bodies to be created.
In fact, it was PRE-EXISTENCE OF SOULS that ORIGIN was condemned for. He was not, in fact, condemned for universalism (of salvation. The whols "pre-existence of souls" thing opens up huge fissures in doctrine. Had to be condemned.
.
NOW, THE "IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL" THING... NO SUCH THING IN CHRISTIANITY. ITS PAGAN. WITH IT YOU DON'T NEED A RESURRECTION. DON'T NEED CHRIST.
quote:
God alone "has immortality"—ho monos echon athanasian (I Tim. 6:16).
And THIS hits the nail on the head.....
quote:
Archpriest Georges Florovsky (1893-1979)
The “Immortality” of the Soul *
From Chapter VI, “Dimensions of Redemption,” of the
Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. III:
Creation and Redemption (Nordland Publishing Company:
Belmont, Mass., 1976), pp. 213-240.
Etienne Gilson, in his Gifford lectures, felt himself compelled to make the following startling statement: "On the whole," he said, "Christianity without an immortality of the soul is not altogether inconceivable– the proof is that it has been so conceived. What is, on the contrary, absolutely inconceivable, is Christianity without a Resurrection of Man."1 The striking feature of the early history of the Christian doctrine of Man was that many of the leading writers of the second century seem to have emphatically denied the (natural) immortality of the soul. And this does not seem to be an exceptional or extravagant opinion of certain writers only, but rather the common teaching of the age. Nor was this conviction completely abandoned in a later age. Bishop Anders Nygren, in his famous book, Den kristna karlekstanken genom tiderna, praises the Apologists of the second century precisely for this courageous statement and sees in it an expression of the true Evangelical spirit. The main emphasis was then, as in Nygren's opinion it should ever be, rather on the "Resurrection of the body" than on the "Immortality of the soul."2
http://www.jbburnett.com/auctor/florovsky/3/florovsky_3-6f-immortality.pdf
- For a Greek it was a liberation, a “return” to the native sphere of spirits. For a Christian it was the catastrophe, a frustration of human existence. The Greek doctrine of Immortality could never solve the Christian problem. The only adequate solution has been offered by the message of Christ’s Resurrection and by the promise of the General Resurrection of the dead.
- People “who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven are not Christian at all” (Dial., 80). The unknown author of the treatise On Resurrection (traditionally ascribed to St. Justin) states the problem very accurately. “For what is man but a reasonable animal composed of body and soul? Is the soul by itself man? No, but the soul of man. Would the body be called man? No, but it is called the body of man. If neither of these is by itself man, but that which is made up of the two together is called man, and God has called man to life and resurrection, He has called not a part, but the whole, which is the soul and the body” (De resurr., 8). Athenagoras of Athens develops the same argument in his admirable treatise On the Resurrection of the Dead. Man was created by God for a definite purpose, for perpetual existence. Now, “God gave independent being and life neither to the nature of the soul by itself, nor to the nature of the body separately, but rather to men, composed of soul and body, so that with these same parts of which they are composed, when they are born and live, they should attain after the termination of this life their common end; soul and body compose in man one living entity.” There would no longer be a man, Athenagoras argues, if the completeness of this structure were broken, for then the identity of the individual would be broken also. The stability of the body, its continuity in its proper nature, must correspond to the immortality of the soul. “The entity which receives intellect and reason is man, and not the soul alone. Consequently man must for ever remain composed of soul and body.” Otherwise there would be no man, but only parts of man. “And this is impossible, if there is no resurrection. For if there is no resurrection, the nature of men as men would not continue” (15). The basic presupposition of the whole argument is that the body intrinsically belongs to the fullness of human existence. And therefore man, as man, would cease to exist, if the soul had to remain for ever “disembodied.” It is precisely the opposite of what the Platonists contended. The Greeks dreamt rather of a complete and ultimate disincarnation. An embodiment was just the bondage of the soul. For Christians, on the other hand, death was not a normal end of human existence. Man’s death is abnormal, is a failure. The death of man is “the wages of sin” (Rom. 6:23). It is a loss and corruption. And since the Fall the mystery of life is displaced by the mystery of death. Mysterious as the “union” of soul and body indeed is, the immediate consciousness of man witnesses to the organic wholeness of his psycho-physical structure. Anima autem et spiritus pars hominis esse possunt, homo autem nequaquam, said St. Irenaeus (Adv. haereses V, 6.1). A body without a soul is but a corpse, and a soul without body is a ghost. Man is not a ghost without body, and corpse is not a part of man. Man is not a “bodiless demon,” simply confined in the prison of the body. That is why the “separation” of soul and body is the death of man himself, the discontinuation of his existence, of his existence as a man. Consequently death and the corruption of the body are a
sort of fading away of the “image of God” in man. A dead man is not fully human. St. John of Damascus, in one of his glorious anthems in the Burial Service, says of this: “I weep and I lament, when I contemplate death, and see our beauty, fashioned after the image of God, lying in the grave disfigured, dishonored, bereft of form.” St. John speaks not of man’s body, but of man himself.
“Our beauty in the image of God” is not the body, but man. He is indeed an “image of the unfathomable glory of God,” even when “wounded by sin.” And in death it is disclosed that man, this “reasonable statue” fashioned by God, to use the phrase of St. Methodius (De resurrectione 1, 34.4: to agalma to logikon), is but a corpse. “Man is but dry bones, a stench and the food of worms.”11 One may speak of man as being “one hypostasis in two natures,” and not only of, but precisely in two natures. And in death this one human hypostasis is broken up. And there is no man any more. And therefore man longs for “the redemption of his body” (Rom. 8:23: ten apolytrôsin tou sômatos hêmôn). As St. Paul says elsewhere, “not for that we would be unclothed, but that we would be clothed, that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life” (2 Cor. 5:4). The sting of death is precisely in that it is “the wages of sin,” i.e., the consequence of a distorted relationship with God. It is not only a natural imperfection, nor is it just a metaphysical deadlock. Man’s mortality reflects man’s estrangement from God, Who is the only Giver of Life. And, in this estrangement from God, Man simply cannot “endure” as man, cannot stay fully human. The status of mortality is essentially “subhuman.” To stress human mortality does not mean to offer a “naturalistic” interpretation of human tragedy, but, on the contrary, it means to trace the human predicament to its ultimate religious root. The strength of Patristic theology was precisely in its interest in human mortality, and accordingly in the message of the Resurrection. The misery of sinful existence was by no means underestimated, but it was interpreted not only in ethical or moralistic categories, but in theological ones. The burden of sin consisted not only in self-accusations of human conscience, not only in the consciousness of guilt, but in an utter disintegration of the whole fabric of human nature. The fallen man was no man any more, he
was existentially “degraded.” And the sign of this “degradation” was Man’s mortality, Man’s death. In separation from God human nature becomes unsettled, goes out of tune, as it were. The very structure of man becomes unstable. The “union” of the soul and the body becomes insecure. The soul loses its vital power, is no more able to quicken the body. The body is turned into the tomb and prison of the soul. And physical death becomes inevitable. The body and the soul are no longer, as it were, secured or adjusted to each other. The transgression of the Divine commandment “reinstated man in the state of nature,” as St. Athanasius puts it,— eis to kata physin epestrepsen. “That as he was made out of nothing, so also in his very existence he suffered in due time corruption, according to all justice.” For, being made out of nothing, the creature also exists over an abyss of nothingness, ever ready to fall into it (De incarnatione, 4 and 5). “For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again” (2 Sam 14:14). “The state of nature,” of which St. Athanasius speaks, is the cyclical motion of Cosmos, in which fallen man is hopelessly entangled, and this entanglement signifies man’s degradation. He loses his privileged position in the order of Creation. But this metaphysical catastrophe is just a manifestation of the broken relationship with God.
. . .
Section IV “I am the Resurrection, and the Life”
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 1/5/2004 7:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Guys and Gals,
Without addressing the issue of reincarnation directly (not any biblical support for it), I would like to address the issue of children who die prior to the beginning of moral accountability (which of course would differ from child to child).
Since I do not find the Augustinian doctrine of Original Sin to be scriptural (and neither did the ante-Nicene fathers), I do not find the issue problematic. As infants and small children are simply unable to make moral decisions (which requires knowledge of good and evil) they by definition cannot be sinners. As such, they are covered by the grace of God. (In my view, this category would probably also include the mentally retarded/challenged).
Why would Jesus say, "Of such is the kingdom of heaven," if infants and small children were really wicked sinners who "sinned in Adam," and therefore come into the world already under Jehovah's wrathful frown?
Also of note is that nowhere in Scripture do we find that anyone answers for anyone's sins but their own in the Judgment Day.
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 1/6/2004 5:44 AM (GMT -6) | | | L: again, I am not saying one cannot speculate, only that such speculation should not lead us to to beliefs that override the clear teaching of scripture. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Iconoclast
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1227
| Posted 1/6/2004 12:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom
Would you rule out ANY form or understanding of reincarnation?
Iconoclast
I certainly rule out any notion of “works-based” salvation. To me “works-based” salvation is simply the notion that we can “earn” our way to heaven by being good. To me this is nothing but the “legal view” which comes from the knowledge of good and evil.
In my view we “get to heaven” by choosing to love God and one another. Which isn’t really “getting to heaven” but rather choosing to experience loving union with our Creator rather than seeking to gain life for ourselves.
I would therefore NOT rule out some form of reincarnation that was designed to provide us more opportunities to decide to choose to love or not. Now, once our character is “solidified” – or, rather, once we have eternally chosen one or the other, then it seems that the only reason for reincarnation would be that God wanted us to carry out some particular task here on earth.
Would God ever reincarnate a human in the form of an animal? It is hard for me to see exactly how this would further the purpose of providing an opportunity for us to choose to love or not. On the other hand there is an example in the bible of God turning someone into an animal (for all intents and purposes) for a period of time (seven years I believe) in order to influence that person to choose more wisely – and it seemed to work!
Daniel 4:13-34 (King Nebuchadnezzer speaking)
"I saw in the visions of my head as I lay in bed, and behold, a watcher, a holy one, came down from heaven. He cried aloud and said thus, 'Hew down the tree and cut off its branches, strip off its leaves and scatter its fruit; let the beasts flee from under it and the birds from its branches. But leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, amid the tender grass of the field. Let him be wet with the dew of heaven; let his lot be with the beasts in the grass of the earth; let his mind be changed from a man's, and let a beast's mind be given to him; and let seven times pass over him.”
…
And whereas the king saw a watcher, a holy one, coming down from heaven and saying, 'Hew down the tree and destroy it, but leave the stump of its roots in the earth, bound with a band of iron and bronze, in the tender grass of the field; and let him be wet with the dew of heaven; and let his lot be with the beasts of the field, till seven times pass over him'; this is the interpretation, O king: It is a decree of the Most High, which has come upon my lord the king, that you shall be driven from among men, and your dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field; you shall be made to eat grass like an ox, and you shall be wet with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over you, till you know that the Most High rules the kingdom of men, and gives it to whom he will.
…
All this came upon King Nebuchadnez'zar.
…
Immediately the word was fulfilled upon Nebuchadnez'zar. He was driven from among men, and ate grass like an ox, and his body was wet with the dew of heaven till his hair grew as long as eagles' feathers, and his nails were like birds' claws. At the end of the days I, Nebuchadnez'zar, lifted my eyes to heaven, and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High, and praised and honored him who lives for ever; for his dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom endures from generation to generation;
Notice that it says “you shall be made to eat grass like an ox” – now my understanding is that in order to eat grass one needs a very special stomach, or rather, multiple stomachs in order to digest it. So, God turned Nebuchadnezzar's mind into a beast's mind and made him into a cud-chewer in order to influence him to choose more wisely. Seems to me like God will try just about anything to influence us to choose Life. I bet He would even turn Himself into a man and let us torture Him and murder Him if He thought it work. 
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 | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:12 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 |
|
|