Bishop John Spong re-thinks Heaven & Hell

No text in all of scripture says "to be absent from the body IS TO BE present with the Lord" - no - not even 2Cor 5:8.

in Christ,

Bob

 

The whole point of my post is that you do not have some line you must cross before you die.

Rather you must cross in the condition that you started in - fully surrendered to Christ.

in Christ,

Bob

 

No need to strain at gnats Bob. It doesn't have to say that to teach that.
What was Paul saying?

2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

2 Corinthians 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.

Twice he repeats the same truth.
While we are at home in the body we are absent from the Lord. It is evident that that statement being an absolute premise, the corollary is also an absolute truth: While away from the body we are at home with the Lord. There is no other conclusion for a believer.

And thus in verse 8 we have such a conclusion. "To be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. The two go together"
Yes it does say that: word for word. There is no other conclusion. How could it be any clearer?

 

Imagine for a second that our Catholic friends could get by with that kind of response and still call it "sola scriptura". How much doctrine "could NOT be taught" under such a rule??

That is true - but Paul is very clear - his desire is NOT simply to be "absent from the body" for Paul says that in the state where we are absent from the body - but not present with the Lord - we are in the "unclothed state". Paul describes that as a very undesirable state in 2Cor 5.

One may say "While I am in America I am NOT in Australia" - one may also say "I desire to be ABSENT from America and PRESENT in Australia" -- and one may say "I do not desire to be on a long ocean voyage - neither in Austrialia or in America".

But at no point in that list can we conclude that any "absence from America" is "by definition - presence in Australia".

Such an argument makes no sense.

Thus in 2Cor 5 Paul identifies three states -- JUST as he does in 1Cor 15 when he speaks about death and resurrection.


2Cor 4
(Context for hope is set as being the resurrection)

13 But having the same spirit of faith, according to what is written, "I BELIEVED, THEREFORE I SPOKE," we also believe, therefore we also speak,
14 knowing that He who raised the Lord Jesus will raise us also with Jesus and will present us with you.
15 For all things are for your sakes, so that the grace which is spreading to more and more people may cause the giving of thanks to abound to the glory of God.
16 Therefore we do not lose heart, but though our outer man is decaying, yet our inner man is being renewed day by day.
17 For momentary, light affliction is producing for us an eternal weight of glory far beyond all comparison,
18 while we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen; for the things which are seen are temporal, but the things which are not seen are eternal.

The THREE states of man -

1. In this earthly tent - in this house
2. This house torn down - we are in the unclothed state
3. In our heavenly building - a house not made with hands. Present with the Lord

2Cor 5
1 For we know that if the earthly tent which is our house is torn down, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.
2 For indeed in this house we groan, longing to be clothed with our dwelling from heaven,
3 inasmuch as we, having put it on, will not be found naked.[/b]
4 For indeed while we are in this tent, we groan, being burdened, because we do not want to be unclothed but to be clothed, so that what is mortal will be swallowed up by life.

In 2Cor 4 Paul says that the goal - the focus - the hope is placed in the resurrection from the dead.

in Christ,

Bob

 

If you are denying that you will be judged, then the "teaching" that you follow is wrong.

Why not read a little further in 2 Corinthians 5 there DHK.

2 Corinthians 5:8-10 (King James Version)
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done (WORKS), whether it be good or bad.

If you died right now you would be most certainly be with the Lord and you would then be judged. If you are going to heaven and you have any sins left, you will be cleansed and washed white as snow. Now - is this process instantaneous? I don't know and neither do you. God is outside of time. This process is what is known as purgatory.

Peace!

 

Which makes void the entire doctrine of indulgences - even "IF" the speculation about "saints needing to be cleansed" after death (for which we have no text at all) were true.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Paradosis Bob, Paradosis.

 

Thinkingstuff - and your point?

 

What you can't read my sarcasm?
That your point

Fails to the Catholics because they are reliant of Paradosis. Lori has mentioned it several times. They claim the speculation is yours because they have 2,000 years of interpreting the scripture the same way and they have consistent paradosis which basis they hold to. Just like you hold to your paradosis of maintaining the dietary laws of the OT but I am certain you don't follow the commandments of the tzittzit or have a tallit with tzittzit. Or wear garments made of the same material but a mixture.

 

As was pointed out on the other thread - the prohibtion in scripture is against single cloth woven with both linen and wool. I simply made the obvious observation that we don't normally wear clothes consisting of a weave of wool and linen. Not the big flaw that many had so offhandedly imagined.

I also point out above - my argument is based on the text of scripture and since a lot of people like the idea of Lev 19:18 "love your neighbor as yourself" so they should be happy with the rest of that chapter (that speaks to the woven cloth problem) as well, and yes even Lev 11 that says not to eat rats, cats and diseased meat etc. Again - not the big leap in imagination and logic that some have hope it would be.

So my position remains in the "sola scriptural" realm and if this is the Catholic position on indulgences and purgatory - then we are going to have a nice time digging into that "scriptura" to see if it supports their view.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Scripture is clear on the garment issue as well as the tzittzit. In fact we are to be sanctified by the wearing of the tzittzit. Its not an option but a requirement. Your church's paradosis excludes the wearing of the tzittzit in which case how sola scriptura are you really? And note paradosis is also termed such that you interpret scripture by this same means everytime. So in the end we all hold to a paradosis of looking at scripture. No one ever just reads the simple meaning of scripture. They view it with their paradosis.

 

Well, that’s not quite the end of the story...

Everyone will be judged according to their works – heaven for those who persevere in those good works and hell for those who disobey. No one gets a pass on this.

Ok – and how long does that clothing in Christ’s righteousness take? Is it instantaneous? God is outside of time you know. Is there some cleansing that takes place in order to be clothed in Christ’s righteousness? The early Church Fathers seemed to think so and they were much closer in time to the actual teachings of the apostles than some theologian 1500-2000 years later.

Not according to scripture:
Here it is again.

It should be abundantly clear here that everyone (2 Corinthians 5:10) will be repaid according to their works – and that repayment is either eternal life (for those who did good works), or eternal damnation to those who were disobedient. There are the "rewards" of which you speak.

End of story – Amen!

‡ Peace ‡

 

Nope – that is unscriptural - see post #133

Then why are you going unto judgment? Are you currently free from sin? Will you remain that way until death?

You are confusing justification with sanctification. The later is a life long process…

Condemnation? No. Purification? For those of us with the stain of sin on our souls, yes.

Yes - we can have confidence that God will keep his promise -assuming that we don't fall away. However, none of this negates the concept of a final cleansing.

‡ Peace ‡

 

That scenario works about as well as any other that I've heard. ;)

 

You know very well what I mean. Your concept of rewards as you posited them - that is unscriptural.

The reward is either heaven (eternal life) or hell (eternal damnation).

“I am free from sin. However, I will and do still sin…” How convoluted is that!

Well, if that interpretation were true, then anyone could do anything they like in this life without retribution in the afterlife. After all, it’s all been forgiven before we even do it. Scripture clearly states that we will be judged according to our works. See the above!

Right! And that sanctification “finishing” process must take place, which is precisely my point! Just another point here - in order to be clothed in Christs righteousnes, one must be baptized .

Romans 6:3–4: Are you unaware that we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.

Galatians 3:27: For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.

1 Corinthians 12:13: For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit (see also Mark 16:16, Acts 2:38, Acts 22:16, and Col. 2:11–13).

Then you have no need for judgment do you. I mean, since you are already spotless and all…

You can’t. However “washed clean” is the operative phrase here - it’s a cleansing – a purgation about which we are speaking. This is the very essence of the discussion.

‡ Peace ‡

 

I guess I missed the "mankind sanctified by wearing tzittzit" - in fact even orthodox Jews today do not do that apart from clergy.

Secondly - this is an "appearance" differentiator for Jews and has nothing to do with morals or with health.

1. Turns out "exegesis" is the rule not paradosis.

2. Your idea is of the form "I (thinkingstuff) have to pay attention to Lev 19:18 Love your Neighbor - but not Lev 11 about do not eat rats and diseased meat - however you will have to observe the rule for Hebrew clergy regarding tassels if you choose to obey God's Word by avoiding diseased meats and rat sandwiches".

Your solution does not make a lot of sense.

That is what the Catholic marketing literature says - but it is not even remotely exegesis of the text.

in Christ,

Bob

 

Then the so-called "infallable" system of indulgences is total nonsense because you cannot "pressurize person B" as a way of "pressurizing person A".

in Christ,

Bob

 

The point I am making is that whenever a good case is attempted for Purgatory - (from discussion reason alone - since in fact there is no text for it) --- the argument always surfaces in a form that makes the system of indulgences impossible.

in Christ,

Bob