When I asked you what you thought of Bulgakov’s suggestion, you said
If you rule out reincarnation, and you believe that "“human choices require some sort of embodied state,” don’t you think that a post-resurrection “a quasi-material/pre-glorified body that moves toward fuller redemption as agents exercise their wills” is plausible?
You seem to have when you posted that reply.
Do you now consider it implausible?
I agree.
And when you press a question as hard as we have here, it’s not useful to dismiss plausible explanations.
The only thing that “upsets” me is your backpeddling on what I thought you agreed was a plausible explanation.
If the love of God embodied in Christ on the Cross satisfies our need to know that out lost loved ones (babies and children) will not fail to secure their destinies in Christ…
…what’s motivating your desire to further speculate about the afterlife? Help me find a reason to keep talking about this.
Are we JUST shooting the breeze academically while we chill out or are we trying to solve some problem. If the latter, what’s the problem we’re solving? If the former, then there’s nothing lost or gained by moving forward or pulling out.
I saw no reason to keep talking about it, after you said
But given your subsequent posts, I’m unclear on whether you consider this a plausible explanation.
Even if we’re not able to answer the question we’ve both asked here with certainty, can we agree that a post resurrection “quasi-material/pre-glorified body that moves toward fuller redemption as agents exercise their wills” (as Bulgakov seemed to suggest) is a plausible answer?
(And if not, why not?)
Is a straight answer to that question too much to ask?
(And btw: Do you consider the resurrection one of the “operations of Hotel Postmortem”?)
After reading this thread I no doubt have great difficulties with all kinds of opinions (including my own). But the idea that a person is not a person (of worth) - If I understand TGB correctly - seems to puzzle me. God values people regardless of their imperfection or their perfection so I’m not sure where that leads me. (( I’m probably misunderstanding you TGB)) But I will say that reincarnation only seems to beg the question.
If I understand eastern thought on it, a child may die in the womb because in his/her past life they were evil. So god punishes them in the womb. But how in the world can this be bettering anyone? If a person dies at the age of 14, have they come to be a person? What qualifies in terms of experiences and wisdom that makes a person a person? If a child dies at 5 years old, do they take with them what they learned in the 5 years? I doubt it.
As I see it, the Adam naval theory is not so ridiculous; a mystery yes, but just as a sparrow falls to the ground which God cares about, I hardly think God requires that bird to have made wise or not so wise choices to call it a bird nor to care for it. Likewise, when a child dies, why can’t the child be raised up in God’s kingdom w/o the presence of sin and still be a person…Enter Adam.
I understand you TGB (like Craig) to embrace the concept that when one cannot sin or at least that “epistemic distance” is small enough that sin is no longer an option - there is no LFW. Yet I tend to understand that the less epistemic distance there is the more freedom one gains. Leading me to the allegory - Do you believe God could not raise up a son (Adam) w/o the tree of knowledge of good and evil? I would argue God could. As I understand you TGB, You would deny this motion. Or more specific to the thread, could God raise an infant in his presence w/o the option to sin and still call her a person or a daughter? I believe he can.
To me Libertarians see the need to sin in order for life to exist, where I would say sin is required for death to exist. But does life require death? I don’t believe it does any more than God requires evil to exist in order to be good. God exists as good regardless of evil.
Not sure where I expressed it so poorly, but I’d agree with you that God attributes worth and value to us all unconditionally. I’m all over that! Yeah.
LFW (or any theory of choice I think) is rational choice between options one understands. We’re talking about informed/rational and responsible choice, right? Sin is born of this capacity. Without it, sin doesn’t get off the ground, right? I’m not sure where I’m confusing you on this Auggy. But I’ll clear it up if I can.
Auggy: Do you believe God could not raise up a son (Adam) w/o the tree of knowledge of good and evil? I would argue God could. As I understand you TGB, You would deny this motion. Or more specific to the thread, could God raise an infant in his presence w/o the option to sin and still call her a person or a daughter? I believe he can.
Tom: Oh, I see what you mean. Right, I’d disagree. I don’t think God can just—poof—produce from the get-go, by fiat, sentient (rational/feeling/choosing) beings who are already perfected persons who love necessarily. That can’t be just spoken into existence. I think creatures must participate (freely, there’s the rub!) in shaping their personal identity and characters.
Auggy: To me libertarians see the need to sin in order for life to exist…
Tom: We see the freedom (or, possibility, or capacity) to sin as necessary for creaturely love to come into being.
If I understand Muslim thought, the resurrection of the body will be very sensual (with seventy two virgins awaiting those willing to die for Islam.)
What do Muslim thoughts on the resurrection, or eastern thoughts on reincarnation, have to do with this discussion here?
Also, reincarnation was only one possibility discussed here.
The other was a post resurrection “quasi-material/pre-glorified body that moves toward fuller redemption as agents exercise their wills.”
(And btw, Tom, would you mind telling me if you consider that a plausible answer to the questions we’re discussing here?)
If Adam could have just been placed in God’s Kingdom, why was he placed in that garden, forced to make an unecessary choice, cast out, cursed, and inflicted with the loss of two sons (one of whom murdered the other). the loss of his wife (if Eve died before he did), and with aging, sickness, and death?
Why would all his children (not fortunate enough to die at birth) be cursed with sin, sufferng, loss, aging, sickness, and death?
And why would God’s only begotten Son have to come to earth and die an agonizing death on the cross to put it all right?
He wasn’t “talking about Eastern Orthodox,” and I just edited my post to clarify who I was quoting.
I asked you if you thought a post resurrection “quasi-material/pre-glorified body that moves toward fuller redemption as agents exercise their wills’” was a viable solution (to questions raised by infant mortality) for an orthodox (Bible believing) Christian.
All these things happened to achieve a “good” which could not be achieved in any other way, even by Omnipotence. Either that, or God is incompetent at best, or evil at worst. (A man cuts off his enemy’s leg with a knife. On the face of it, we must judge that act as evil. But what if we discover a deeper truth? The enemy had gangrene and the man was a surgeon.)
What this costly “good” will finally look like, God only knows. I certainly don’t. We will have to wait until the end of the world to find out. On the Day on Judgment, God also will be judged by Man. God has a duty of care toward his creatures, and he seems to have failed miserably. He must face charges of crimes against humanity. Many who are innocent have shed deeply bitter tears, and they have a right to know why. God’s explanation for the unremitting and undeserved evil experienced by many in this world will have to be something quite special. (The resurrection of Christ gives me a hint. Didn’t Mary also “rise from the dead” that bright and happy morning?)
Michael: I asked you if you thought a post resurrection “quasi-material/pre-glorified body that moves toward fuller redemption as agents exercise their wills’” was a viable solution (to questions raised by infant mortality) for an orthodox (Bible believing) Christian. Do you Tom?
Tom: Having offered it myself to explore, I’m not sure how viable it is. What would quasi-material be? We’re either resurrected or we’re not, right? But I do think disembodied human existence can be conscious, even if it doesn’t represent God’s full purposes for us. So perhaps we don’t need an embodied state to work out our issues post-mortem. This is where I decide to invest my energies in issues that are more relevant. What I’m confident of is that God will never cease pursuing our perfection. Whatever our embodied state needs to be to achieve that, God will see to it. And I don’t have any crucial issues hanging on post-mortem/pre-resurrection quasi-embodiment.
I put “quasi-material” in quotes because those were the words you used.
Given the original quote from Bulgakov, I think “quasi-immortal,” or “quasi-glorified” would be closer to what he had in mind.
If the unsaved are resurrected in a material, embodied (“quasi-glorfied”) state, and grow into the full glory of the resurrection as they exercise their wills (which I believe is how you put it elsewhere), wouldn’t that answer all the questions we’ve been pressing here?
Do you consider that a viable solution to our mutual problem (a problem, I might add, that’s appearently shared by Greg Boyd)?
But if the world we’re embodied in (with all it’s trials, choices, and suffering) is nevessary, wouldn’t you agree that one couldn’t just skip it (or any world like it), and go straight to glory?
As an alternate solution (and if disembodied human existence is conscious), is it not possible that disembodied spirits (particularly those with little if any post-natal experience) maintain some connection to this world, and share in our experience of it (and our growing pains here)?
Given scripture and tradition, do you consider either of these alternatives viable solutions to the problem you’ve acknowledged and recognzed on this thread (or do you maintain that scripture and tradition leave no room for any viable solution conceivable by man at this time)?
But how do you THINK my sister might achieve the same “costly good” I hope my mother and I will (and that you say could be acheived in no other way than that provided by this world)?
Will she perhaps share (somehow) in the whole wider human experience here?
Will she be able to feel our pain, and learn from our experiences somehow?
Will she be able to say (feel, and really know), that’s what a fallen world was like, that’s what I would have done, this was their place in the big picture, this is what they learned, this is what I would have done, this is what I would have learned, glade I didn’t have to go through that, but this is my place in the big picture, and this is what I’ve learned from it all?
Could that be what’s meant by the books being opened?
That’s an interesting thought. “I believe in the communion of saints”. ie. the saints will be able to communicate and empathize perfectly, becoming one entity (the Bride of Christ) while retaining their individual identities. Your sister will share the experience of all humanity. (It’s the Trinity again. Unity in diversity.) But what will be her individual identity? How and where would it develop? I don’t know.
Michael: I put “quasi-material” in quotes because those were the words you used.
Tom: I know. I’m just saying I’m not sure how plausible the concept of “quasi-material” even is. It’s less and less plausible the more I think about it.
Michael: Given the original quote from Bulgakov, I think “quasi-immortal,” or “quasi-glorified” would be closer to what he had in mind.
Michael: If the unsaved are resurrected in a material, embodied (“quasi-glorfied”) state, and grow into the full glory of the resurrection as they exercise their wills (which I believe is how you put it elsewhere), wouldn’t that answer all the questions we’ve been pressing here?
Tom: Well, we know from Scripture the wicked ARE resurrected and then judged. So if UR is to be true, it’s true because the judged wicked come to faith in their embodied state. THAT is plausible.
Michael: Do you consider that a viable solution to our mutual problem (a problem, I might add, that’s appearently shared by Greg Boyd)?
Michael: But if the world we’re embodied in (with all it’s trials, choices, and suffering) is necessary, wouldn’t you agree that one couldn’t just skip it (or any world like it), and go straight to glory?
Tom: SOMETHING essential to human perfection and fulfilment is had in THIS world and (given UR) in the NEXT. As far as I can tell that something is just a certain exercise of the will to embrace the truth about one’s groundedness and identity in Christ. I’m not sure just how many of this world’s accoutrements are ALSO necessary to a person’s exercising their will in the required sense. Probably some. I don’t know (and don’t see the need about caring about) these accoutrements.
Michael: As an alternate solution (and if disembodied human existence is conscious), is it not possible that disembodied spirits (particularly those with little if any post-natal experience) maintain some connection to this world, and share in our experience of it (and our growing pains here)?
Tom: I honestly don’t know how to judge the possibility. It’s way out on the edge of speculation.
The alternatives you speak of are (1) that the wicked are raised and judged as embodied (and this embodied state is minimally similar to pre-mortem existence. With this I’ve already agreed. But your (2), that disembodied spirits remain connected to this world and work out their issues in that relationship (so that death doesn’t essentially disconnect them from their being in ‘this’ world; it only affects perception levels and spheres of influence), is too speculative for me to find very helpful.
If I may add something, Michael, let me just say again that the peace of mind and assurance you seek regarding your sister’s fate requires no speculation whatsoever, for it is available in the demonstration of infinite divine love on the Cross. The assurance we all desperately want to experience regarding the fate of our loved ones who die prematurely is behind us, not in front of us. It is found in Christology not Eschatology.
Michael,
It sounds like I may have offended you. I don’t know how or where but I meant no disrespect. I raised up reincarnation because of it’s possibility here in this thread (though it also shares the topic on the other - I decided to confine my thoughts here rather than to go on two threads). Whatever the case, if I offended you I truly didn’t mean to and I apologize. I certainly hold closer to determinism than LFW but please never mind me if it bothers you. I only want to learn more of the truth of God and man. And if TGB is going to disarm my views and help me obtain a new set of opinions it will be with hard work.
Tom,
I can’t say I totally disagree because scripture and life are still quite elusive to me regarding how deep I can really analyze (my IQ is not that high lol). I think a fundamental difference is our understanding of Genesis’ creation story. I, like athisfeet, share the view that the power is in the allegory rather than philosophy. I only mean that I think it’s more about the Christ than it is about whether free will or determinism exists - to be truthful, I doubt it’s about any of LFW or DET.
I only believe experience, which requires life, is necessary for a person to exist. How God does that I cannot say requires a world just as it is here - seems too presumptious to me to say such things - as if we know. Now granted we don’t know what a world looks like where people are raised up without choices - (hard determinism) but that does not (at least as far as I can see) mean that it cannot. It seems logically possible for God to make a donkey talk and rebuke a king without having to raise up that donkey in the proper education. And I imagine that if God wanted to make a person “poof” appear with whatever knowledge he wanted, he could. Now whether he chooses to or not is another matter.
So I still feel very comfortable with a child dying and being raised in a place where sin is not an option and calling that person “a pereson”. Why wouldn’t we? Perhaps we should say the donkey didn’t talk since God poofing the words and language into it’s brain is unfair???
Then you must conceed that this world, all it’s suffering, and all it’s history (including Eden, Gethsemane, and Calvary) is unecessary.
You call your god a god of love, and claim to believe he has a purpose, but maintain that he does things for no reason (and for that reason, any thinking person would have to doubt the existence of your god.)
As to the donkey, it didn’t have a lot to say about good and evil, right or wrong, faith, hope, or love (or any of the things we’re presumably supposed to learn here.)
All it did was remind Balaam that it had always obeyed him in the past, and asked him why he was hitting her (and even dumb animals know they don’t like being hit, which is more than my sister knew when she left this earth.)
Thank you Tom, but the questions raised here don’t really concern the “wicked” (if by that, you mean the likes of Hitler, Stallin, and Pol Pot.)
I’m interested in my sister (and still-born infants like her.)
And the basic question here is whether our Faith (The Christian Faith in general, or Christian Universalism in particular) offers any solution (or leaves room for any solution) to the problem of infant mortality.
Do you think altenative #1 is a plausible answer to the question of what happens to souls like my sister’s (who left this world without ever living outside the womb, and without doing anything good or evil)?
Michael: I’m interested in my sister (and still-born infants like her.) And the basic question here is whether our Faith (The Christian Faith in general, or Christian Universalism in particular) offers any solution (or leaves room for any solution) to the problem of infant mortality. Do you think altenative #1 is a plausible answer to the question of what happens to souls like my sister’s (who left this world without ever living outside the womb, and without doing anything good or evil)? Please reply.
Tom: I’m honestly open to the idea that human disembodied spirits can exercise their will in a manner appropriate, sufficient and responsible to qualify persons like your sister for perfection and fulfillment. But if something like soul-sleep is true and humans have no conscious experience when disembodied, then the perfection of which we speak awaits a time subsequent to the resurrection.
I remember John Piper used (maybe still does) to have a page on his website posting an answer to a question about deceased babies. He said they MUST choose Christ, hence there must be some post-mortem context in which elect babies are brought to maturity, hear the gospel, and choose. Interesting, eh? Piper of all people. But when I went back recently to find that page, it was gone. Hmmm. Non-elect babies, by the way, went straight to hell. They didn’t have to mature and reject Christ. I was like, you gotta be kidding me.
Anyhow…
Like I’ve said before, Michael, your sister’s fate is secure given what we KNOW to be true because of the Cross, not given what we can only speculate about regarding the nature of human consciousness and embodiment after death.
So, turn around, Mike. Look BEHIND you. See the Cross? That’s ALL you need, Bro—literally—all you need to rest secure. Given the cross and the infinite love of God, it is very reasonable to conclude that whatever may be the requirements (embodied or not) regarding human volition relative to salvation and human perfection and glorification, God will surely bring about the conditions necessary to their eventual fulfillment where your sister is concerned–if he hasn’t done so already! Beyond THAT, it’s all guess work and speculation.
I would like to believe in a conscious intermediate state, but even if there is one, it seems to me that souls who were never embodied in this world, never interacted with other embodied souls, never skinned a knee or burned a finger, never tasted anything sweet or bitter, and never saw a smile or a frown that they caused appear on another human face, would have things to learn from this world (or a world like it.)
If they’re able to learn these things in the intermediate state, it would seem to me that they must have some connection to this world (and our experiences here–that’s why I found Allan’s comment about the communion of the saints interesting.)
If they’re not able to learn these things from this world while in the intermediate state, I suspect the perfection of which we speak would still have to await a time subsequent to the resurrection (even if humans have conscious experience when disembodied,)
I don’t find their continued connection to this world very helpful. They’re still disembodied…so all the stuff you mentioned (skinning knees, riding bikes, etc.) continues to be unavailable to them. The required social interaction would have to happen with other similarly disembodied souls, and how do we construct that? We can’t. So why go there? We’re just speculating unnecessarily.
We can speculate plausibly THAT such souls eventually develop toward their perfection, yes. That’s helpful. But plausibility decreases the more specific we require our scenarios to become just to satisfy our curiosity. And the less plausible things become the less interested I am in them. I’ve no need whatsoever to specualate on competing postmortem scenarios and the nature of postmortem embodied sociality, etc. It’s the FATE of people that concerns me. And we’ve got all we need to have regarding deceased infants in the revelation of divine love on calvary. If somebody could show that postmortem development is strictly speaking impossible (metaphysically speaking), THEN we’d have to go to work defeating such an argument. But who can mount a successful argument for the metaphysical impossibility of postmortem conscious existence? …Exactly.
Calvary is enough, Michael. When you meet your sister I’m sure she’ll tell you, “You shoulda listened to that Tom guy and rested yourself in the assurance of calvary love that I was OK and not worried so constantly.”
Michael, I’ll take it that I did not offend you, which relieves me. As for your points, “unnecessary” in what ways? I would say most certainly suffering is necessary regarding particular point. I see sin as necessary for mercy to exist. Mercy is not the full definition of love but most certainly is an aspect of it. Though I see sin as necessary for mercy, I don’t believe mercy is logically required to create persons. So for me it gets complicated quick.
Yes I do believe God has a purpose but I don’t maintain the he does things for “no” reason. I’m simply not certain that the ONLY reason required is, that a person go through the mill in order to be a person. Rather I see it that God’s purpose of sin is that we might experience his mercy which requires disobedience. Of course you or others might doubt the existence of my god, just as I might doubt the existence of yours, but so what. Even at times (like Jeffa) I doubt the existence of God (my god) - I’m certainly not one who has figured everything out. Like I said, if I’m to embrace TGB’s LFW ideas and views it will be through much discussion and reading.
With that said, certain things you both have said appeals to me as I travel deeper into my own thoughts. But that does not mean they persuade me to abandon my own. That takes time and hopefully no matter what, we’ll all have learned something through it all.
I raised up the donkey as an example because (as I understand TGB) it seems that the only person who can be called a “person” is one who goes through the trials of this life. Therefore I would logically conclude (obviously) that your sister - lacking all those experiences - is not a person if indeed she did not go through these same experiences. And thus if she is not a person, then perhaps she will not be in heaven, hell or ever have a chance at life at all since God annihilating her would pose no moral problem. But perhaps I’m misunderstanding (something I’ve commonly done) and am speaking from a misunderstanding. Thus the donkey only represents that the donkey did not have to go to school and learn his ABC’s or phonics in order to talk. And more questions are raised such as, did the donkey understand what it was even saying? Or was it merely a puppet that God was speaking through to rebuke the king? Was an education required for the donkey to speak? How could that be? Well I would ask the same thing of God raising people up as he pleases for his purpose with whatever it is he would have them say or do. I realize how ridiculous it sounds, but then again, talking donkeys sounds funny as well.
All that to say, how much I agree with Tom that God’s love for us is manifested in dying for us. And God’s love for us is manifested in raising us up. I have little doubt that, whether or not I am right or wrong regarding what is necessary to make a person, your sister is a person that God loves - which is what causes me to conclude that her being a person is irrelevant of her experiences. Certainly the experiences might shape particular aspects, but they’re not necessary (as far as I understand) for God to love and I believe he does love her as a person.