First off I’d like to thank you guys for this great discussion. Much appreciated.
Before I ask (press?) you (Aaron) for a more specific answer, may I ask all of those reading this thread (esp Michael and Aaron) with regards to the nature of the “person” Samuel who appears to Saul: I’ve been raised to hold that the devil is capable of a feat of deception and impersonation such as this. That “Samuel” was actually a deception created by Satan. That the “real” Samuel remained asleep in his grave and knew nothing of this saga.
Does that explanation have any validity to your mind??
Back to Aaron who said:
Well I guess it does help a bit (in that I now know more about how you think!) but it remains rather vague and does not really get to the heart of why I’ve asked you this question. Let me try to ask it better…
Since we share the belief in UR, it must follow that all arrive, eventually, to that condition of confession and repentance and remorse and “belief” in the truth about God and so on. Further, this happens sometime before the actual reunion with Christ (what many have talked about as simply “going to heaven” I suppose). Further still, it seems quite apparent that many actually DO go to their graves yet in the state of sin and rebellion. (Unless one wants to postulate a deathbed conversion for ALL who die…) But since many go to their grave (unaware and asleep as you defend so well) yet not having gone through this process of being won back to trust in God, and it can only happen in an “alive” and aware person/mind, that poses a dilemma for your position doesn’t it?
Talbott has spoken of “hell” as that experience of anguish and torment which can be seen as the experience of God (via means that only because of OUR resistance and rebellion needed to be so harsh in the first place,) allowing and leading us to circumstances wherein our delusions and illusions that hold us bondage to false beliefs are shattered. And that experience is so severe and troublesome that it is called “hell”. This implies perhaps long periods of time to accomplish; and certainly not an instantaneous act on the part of God to just intervene and “change us” at the resurrection.
I’m assuming those who believe in UR AND in an intermediate state of the dead hold that this long process happens after death, before resurrection maybe, but while IN the intermediate state of the dead that they hold to be real.
Have I explained my question any better and might you clarify a bit more for me Aaron??
PS – it seems to me the whole idea of the open gates of the city, the eventual entry into the City by “The Kings of the Earth” and so on, all point to conversions and repentance and work of the Holy Spirit towards confession AFTER the resurrection don’t they?? (I mean if one goes to the grave and is unrepentant, is unable to repent while dead because he’s asleep, then the only time left for this process of conversion – which appears to possibly be quite lengthy? – is after resurrection. So an intermediate state of the dead does provide a length of time in which this can happen doesn’t it??
Well, if I believed that Scripture revealed the existence of rebel angels and evil supernatural beings ( ), I would definitely see this as a viable position! But I remain unconvinced that such beings have any real existence (see, for example, this thread: viewtopic.php?f=14&t=610&start=0&st=0&sk=t&sd=a), so I don’t think it’s possible that one was impersonating Samuel. I suppose it’s possible that a holy angel was doing the impersonating. Of course, it may be objected that a holy angel wouldn’t do such a thing. However, I don’t think that impersonating Samuel would necessarily be sinful if it was done out of obedience to God, and if the act was without evil, self-serving intent (we know Christ himself engaged in some benevolent “deception” on at least one occasion! See Luke 24:28-29). If this was the case, then it may be that the being was called “Samuel” not merely because he appeared as Samuel, but because he was speaking on Samuel’s behalf (in which case we may understand this as an example of the Hebrew “law of agency,” which, according to the The Encyclopedia of the Jewish Religion, is expressed in the dictum, “a person’s agent is regarded as the person himself”). That is, if it was a holy angel sent by God to “fool” Saul and the medium, then what he said to Saul should be understood as being what Samuel would have said had he actually been present (so now it seems we have four possible ways of understanding this passage that don’t require us to believe that dead people can know or do anything!).
I do know that the position you’ve been raised to hold is a pretty ancient one, as it was held by some of the “church fathers” (such as Tertullian and Gregory of Nyssa) as well as by a number of protestant theologians (most notably, John Calvin), among others. In De Engastrimytho contra Origenem, Eustathius of Antioch argues for this position against Origen (who believed that Samuel actually appeared): books.google.com/books?id=Xt5U2g … en&f=false
You’ve definitely clarified your question better, but unfortunately I don’t think I’ll be able to elaborate very much in my answer! My view is that our post-resurrection experience will be such that moral rebellion will simply not be possible, and that we will have absolutely no inclination to sin after being made immortal. Sin is a transgression of the law of God written on our hearts (i.e., it’s a violation of our conscience). But after the resurrection I don’t believe we will be at all tempted to violate our conscience - and if no temptation is present or possible, then there can be no sin. As to why we will no longer be tempted, or how our desire to sin will be removed, I’m not exactly sure! All I know is that Paul seems to teach that all people will be subjected to Christ when death, the “last enemy,” is abolished, and that there will consequently be no sin in the resurrection state (1 Cor 15:22-28, 55-56). Paul also seems to teach that the power by which Christ is going to raise the dead will be the same power by which all people will be subjected to him (Phil 3:21). But again, I don’t really know how exactly Christ is going to accomplish such an instantaneous transformation in every single person - but I do believe he will, since that’s my understanding of what Scripture teaches. As far as I can tell, there is not a single verse in Scripture which teaches that we will be sinners after the resurrection or in need of some form of remedial punishment to make us less sinful, or that the next state of existence will be such that some indefinite duration of time will be necessary for us to ultimately become sinless beings like Christ is. I just don’t see Scripture as revealing that the process by which we become less sinful in this present state of existence will continue after death.
No, I don’t think so. What I believe John is describing in Rev 21-22 (using highly figurative language) is the establishment of God’s reign among his New Covenant people here on earth. The only exception to this is what John says in Rev 21:4, which I believe pertains exclusively to the resurrection of the dead: “He will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away” (cf. Isaiah 25:8, from which John quotes). I believe John refers to the resurrection here for the same reason that Christ, in chapter six of John’s gospel, declared that those who believe on him would have “age-abiding life” and that he would “raise them up on the last day” (John 6:40). The New Covenant blessing of “age-abiding life” (which I believe John refers to in Rev 21:3) has been available to all since the beginning of Christ’s reign, and will continue until it ends. The blessing of being raised from the dead, however, will not be realized until Christ’s reign ends (what Christ calls “the last day”). But Christ keeps both blessings in view to impress upon the minds of his listeners the fact that those who believe on him would enjoy continuous and uninterrupted blessing for the duration of his reign (i.e., the blessing of being in the Messianic kingdom for as long as one lives, followed by the blessing of being raised from the dead when Christ returns from Heaven at the end of his reign). Like his Lord, John is here emphasizing the fact that Christ’s reign means continuous and unending blessing for those who believe on him: first, the blessing that was, at that time, about to commence (i.e., the blessing of inheriting the Messianic kingdom as God’s New Covenant people – v. 3), and then, at the end of the Messianic reign, the blessing of the resurrection (v. 4). Support for this understanding may be found in verse 6, where Christ declares, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end.” But of what is Christ “the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end?” Answer: I believe it is the Messianic age or dispensation that was about to commence shortly after the time of John’s visions, and which would last until the end of redemptive history.
So what are the “new heavens and new earth?” I believe this refers not to a new material universe after the resurrection, but to a new covenant-defined world for God’s people, during the dispensation of the Messiah’s reign. The passing away of the first heaven and the first earth that is described in Rev 20:11 is what I believe was prophesied by Isaiah and Haggai as taking place at the time when the Old Covenant dispensation under the Mosaic Law was replaced by a New Covenant dispensation under the reign of Christ. When John describes the New Jerusalem as having been “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband” (Rev. 21:2), he’s not describing a literal city, but the New Covenant Church, or “Bride of Christ.” In chapter 19, verses 6-9 we read,
And in chapter 21, verses 9-11, we read,
The “Bride” and “wife” of Jesus Christ is not literally a massive, four-sided building made of precious rocks. The New Jerusalem is being employed by John as a symbol for God’s reign in and among the Church – i.e., the “called-out” people of every generation whose allegiance is to the risen Christ, and in whom God’s spirit dwells (Eph 2:22). As a corporate body, she is built of “living stones” (1 Pet 2:4-5), her “foundation” is the apostles and prophets (Eph 2:20; cf. Rev 21:14), and her “cornerstone” is Christ himself (1 Pet 2:4). The identity of the “New Jerusalem” with those within and among whom God reigns (i.e., the Church, or Body of Christ) becomes even more evident when we compare John’s symbolic description of it above with Paul’s words concerning Christ and the Church in Eph 5:25-27: “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”
In Revelation, John is simply describing that of which Paul is speaking in the above verse with the image of the heavenly city of Jerusalem descending to earth “prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.” The church, Christ’s bride, was presented to Christ “in splendor” at the time of his coming in his kingdom, when the Messianic reign began and the New Covenant was consummated. It was this transition from Mosaic dispensation to Messianic kingdom (in which God’s reign was established in the world among all true believers), that is figuratively described by John as being the “marriage supper of the Lamb” (Rev 19:9).
Again, I just don’t see anything in Scripture that reveals that there will be any need for a “process of conversion” after the resurrection. I believe all desire to sin will be removed from human experience just as instantaneously as mortality and pain.
The following response to Nathan is a continuation of a discussion that began on the following thread: Anyone ever thought of this?
Yes, I’d say that, based on the larger context of Scripture as well as on what Jesus says, I think it’s reasonable to believe that God was giving Peter, James and John a vision of the two men who represent the Law and the Prophets in order to demonstrate the superiority of Christ. Like the blanket full of animals descending from heaven, that which Peter, James and John were seeing and hearing at this time was something God was miraculously causing them to see and hear in their minds.
No, I think Jesus’ ascension into heaven was an objective reality that was visibly seen with the eyes of those who were present when it took place.
While I don’t believe the blanket full of animals and the voice Peter heard telling him to “Rise…kill and eat” was an objective experience that could’ve been seen or heard had others been present (we’re told it was a vision and that it took place after Peter had fallen into a trance), I’m not sure why it’s being a vision means that Peter shouldn’t have taken the gospel to the Gentiles. God was making a point, and giving Peter this vision was the means by which he made his point. Same goes with the appearance of Moses and Elijah. The fact that something is a vision rather than an objective reality does not empty it of importance or meaning or value.
It was a miraculous experience that served to emphasize Jesus’ Messiahship and his superiority over the Law (represented by Moses) and the Prophets (represented by Elijah). Consider the following from a conservative, evangelical Christian website:
We are told that Adam died and that it was Adam who was to return to the dust from which he was made, right? Or did “Adam” not really return to the dust? Were “Abraham” and “Sarah” not really buried together (Gen 25:10)? Was “David” not really buried in a tomb when Peter and Paul preached (Acts 2:29; 13:36)? What about “Stephen?” Was he not really buried by devout men after he “fell asleep” (Acts 8:2)? Were they actually somewhere else when the above was written of them? I don’t see any good reason from Scripture to believe that they were really somewhere else.
You seem to be identifying “Adam” not with that which returned to the dust (as I thinki God does) but rather with the “breath of life” that was breathed into him by God to make him a “living soul,” and which departed from him when he died and returned to God who gave it. So was this “breath of life” or “spirit” a conscious, thinking person named “Adam” before it was breathed into Adam’s body? No, it wasn’t. It was by means of this “breath of life” that Adam became a “living soul,” but it (the “breath of life”) is not to be identified with Adam. The “he” that refers to Adam was inseparable from his body, not that which entered his body and later departed from it when he died. Adam was not constituted by the “breath of life” or “spirit” that made him a “living soul.” Rather, Adam was constituted by the body that God formed from the dust of the earth, and when Adam’s body died and returned to the dust, Adam died and returned to the dust. And the same goes with all of his descendents. After Christ died and before he was raised, we aren’t told he was in heaven. Rather, we’re told he was in a tomb for 3 days. And even after his resurrection we read that he hadn’t yet ascended to heaven, where the Father is (Jn 20:17).
As far as our destination, no, I don’t believe this world is our permanent “home.” I believe our permanent home is the same place in which Christ presently dwells with a physical, tangible, immortal human body. If heaven is not a realm that was made for physical, embodied beings, then Christ must feel pretty out of place where he’s at now - and I guess we’ll all feel pretty out of place after we’ve been raised from the dead with bodies like his and taken to be where he is!
I do believe we’re “God’s kids” (The Universal Fatherhood of God) but I also believe Scripture teaches that we are beings constituted by physical, tangible bodies, and that we have no conscious existence apart from a living body. Our being children of God has to do with our personhood - i.e., our being rational, self-aware beings with a capacity to resemble God in our character and actions (i.e., by loving others, even our enemies).
Every translation I have reads pretty much the same way: “And as they were coming down the mountain, Jesus commanded them (plural), ‘Tell no one the vision (singular), until the Son of Man is raised from the dead’” (Mt. 16:17). They all saw and experienced exactly what God wanted them to see and experience. This doesn’t mean it was an objective reality. And while you may disagree with my understanding of what happened to Elijah, Scripture is clear that Moses died and that “he” (Moses) was buried by God (Deut. 34:5-6). If “Moses” was “buried” and never left the place where he was buried, then Moses didn’t actually appear on the mount with Jesus. He appeared in a vision only.
These men and women who, by their example of faith, figuratively “surrounded” those to whom the author of Hebrews wrote, are dead. And the dead neither know nor do anything. Those who have died are said to be “asleep,” and are in need of being “awakened” and restored to a living existence. And this will not take place until the resurrection on the “last day,” when all who die in Adam will be made alive in Christ. This is the “better life” to which those referred to in Heb 11:35 were anticipating being raised. It’s “better” because it’s not being raised to merely another mortal existence but rather to an immortal existence like Christ’s. But notice that their hope was in being “raised to a better life,” not going to heaven in a disembodied state after death. This was not the hope of these OT saints, and nor do I think it was the hope of Jesus or his apostles. If there is no future resurrection then these persons of faith have “perished” (1 Cor 15:18). And “if the dead are not raised, ‘Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die’” (v. 32).
I’m not sure how anything said in this or the next chapter reveals that the dead exist in a conscious, disembodied state.
You underlined parts of vv. 13-16, but we aren’t told that Abraham was dwelling in the promised city spoken of in this passage when the author wrote. In fact, we’re explicitly told at the end of this chapter (v. 39) that, while these believers were commended through their faith, they had not received what God had promised them (i.e., the promises that concerned events that were to transpire after their death). Yes, we’re told that they “obtained promises” by faith (v. 33, ESV), but in the immediate context it would seem that the “promises” being referred to here were such promises as were fulfilled while they were alive, not after they died (such as the promise made to Rahab that she would “not perish with those who were disobedient” - v. 31).
), I would definitely see this as a viable position! But I remain unconvinced that such beings have any real existence (see, for example, this thread: 
All I know is that Paul seems to teach that all people will be subjected to Christ when death, the “last enemy,” is abolished, and that there will consequently be no sin in the resurrection state (1 Cor 15:22-28, 55-56). Paul also seems to teach that the power by which Christ is going to raise the dead will be the same power by which all people will be subjected to him (Phil 3:21). But again, I don’t really know how exactly Christ is going to accomplish such an instantaneous transformation in every single person - but I do believe he will, since that’s my understanding of what Scripture teaches. As far as I can tell, there is not a single verse in Scripture which teaches that we will be sinners after the resurrection or in need of some form of remedial punishment to make us less sinful, or that the next state of existence will be such that some indefinite duration of time will be necessary for us to ultimately become sinless beings like Christ is. I just don’t see Scripture as revealing that the process by which we become less sinful in this present state of existence will continue after death.