Where do we go when we die?
First, props to The Dude and Hudson's Dad for sharing some of their thoughts on eschatology for all of us. This is clearly a complex issue, so I just want to focus for a moment on one aspect -- location.
NT Wright says Christians misunderstand three aspects of the afterlife: 1) the timing, 2) our physical state, and 3) the location. I think the common cultural response to this week's question would be "to heaven." If you ask where heaven is, people would talk about clouds.
There are certainly a number of verses that indicate that heaven is in fact in the sky. But are the heavens where we will spend eternity as Christians? If theologians like NT Wright are correct and "life after life after death" is spent in a new earth, this has significant implications on how we treat the earth today.
Some verses that seem to indicate a location for our eternal destination other than the sky:
This topic is relatively new to me, so I feel very underprepared to offer my own interpretation. Instead, I'd love to hear what you guys think. Will heaven come down to earth in the time appointed for Christ to restore all things or will we dwell forever in the heavens? Or both? Or neither?
NT Wright says Christians misunderstand three aspects of the afterlife: 1) the timing, 2) our physical state, and 3) the location. I think the common cultural response to this week's question would be "to heaven." If you ask where heaven is, people would talk about clouds.
There are certainly a number of verses that indicate that heaven is in fact in the sky. But are the heavens where we will spend eternity as Christians? If theologians like NT Wright are correct and "life after life after death" is spent in a new earth, this has significant implications on how we treat the earth today.
Some verses that seem to indicate a location for our eternal destination other than the sky:
Revelation 21:1-4: "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first
heaven and the first earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. And I saw
the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a
bride adorned for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying,
'Behold, the dwelling place of God is with man. He will dwell with them, and
they will be his people, and God himself will be with them as their God. 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.'" (Also 2 Peter 3:13 and Isaiah 65:17 and 66:22)
Acts 3:21: "...Jesus whom heaven must receive until the time for restoring
all the things about which God spoke by the mouth of his holy prophets long
ago." (Also Philippians 3:20 and 1 Thessalonians 1:10)
Acts 1:11: "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into heaven? This
Jesus, who was taken up from you into heaven, will come in the same way as you
saw him go into heaven."
This topic is relatively new to me, so I feel very underprepared to offer my own interpretation. Instead, I'd love to hear what you guys think. Will heaven come down to earth in the time appointed for Christ to restore all things or will we dwell forever in the heavens? Or both? Or neither?
posted by Matthew at 11:40 PM
16 Comments:
Where do we go when we die? Well, it does depend on your eschatological view, mainly if you believe Christ has returned or not.
1 Thess 4:15 says " For this we declare to you by a word from the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will not precede those who have fallen asleep. "
This verse is giving assurance to the Thessalonians that their friends and family who had died will be resurrected from Sheol (in a spiritual manner, I believe) at the coming of the Lord.
Until the Lord comes back, everyone who dies, goes to Sheol to await the coming of the Lord where He will judge those there. If He finds them righteous, then He resurrects them (called firstfruits in the Bible). The others He damns to Hell.
So it really depends on your view. But to skip ahead in the timeline regardless of your view, I don't see much of Heaven in Scripture outside of it being called God's rest, where the Son sits with His Father, etc. And it says that we will dwell with Him eternally.
Again, I think the Revelation verse and the Acts 3 verse are talking about the New Covenant and its perfection.
Gentleman, don't be fooled: This is a question of correct biblical interpretation, not what 'view' one hapens to hold to.
The question "where we go when we die" begs many questions.
1) It assumes we 'go' somewhere. Which part of us is going? Our body or our soul? Our body will go into the ground, so where will our soul go? This leads to questions about the nature of a human being. Are we a body trapped in a soul? The answer, biblically speaking, is emphatically 'no'! The human 'soul' refers "to the totality of a human being in his individual personal existence." When the psalmist speaks of his 'soul', he is referring, basically, to his innermost being, his full self, his true self. NOT a separate entity that exists within his body and gives him a personality. Wendell Berry has a helpful description of this:
The story we read in Genesis 1 is not Man = Body + Soul, but rather dust + breath = soul.
Body and soul are not separate entities. Anything that would say otherwise is not a biblical idea.
2) That being said, this now brings some new light to the question of eschatology. If we weren't created as only spiritual beings trapped inside physical bodies (which is a Greek idea), but rather our physicality is exactly how God intended our existence to be, then why would our 'going to heaven' to be with God spiritually, as HD suggests, be what our final destiny is? God will not annul his good creation. It was created Good, Good, Good, Very Good. God's will for us is to be fully embodied humans. His final end for us, eschatology, won't be anything but the fulfillment of this: Jesus came, and will come again, so that we may have life to the full. Jesus came in bodily form in order to redeem a fallen mankind.
3) Jesus' Resurrection is the firstfruits of the new creation. As Jesus was resurrected in bodily form, so will we.
4) The question of what happens in between the moment of death and the moment of resurrection is a tough one. The bible often describes this as "sleeping", as we see in 1 Thiss. In the OT, as HD pointed out, this is understood as Sheol but the NT doesn't expand much on this. Any ideas of what happens during this in-between time would be speculation.
As I have mentioned to HD before, the problem I have with his interpretation is that it fails to take seriously the nature of New Testament hope. He quoted proverbs last week to show that hope was for people who are weak:
"You must understand that hope is something that a person has because he/she is weak by very definition. Consider Proverbs 13:12 "Hope deferred makes the heart sick, but desire fulfilled is a tree of life."
I beg to differ:
Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. Everyone who has this hope in him purifies himself, just as he is pure.
--1 John 3:2-3
Looking for the blessed hope and glorious appearing of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ.
--Titus 2:13
Now may the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that you may abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
--Romans 15:13
I will stop there, but there are many more I could use. Hope in the future coming of God is one of the three Christian virtues listed by Paul. Faith, hope and love.
To summarize my position: We wait in hope for the coming of the Lord, so that when we pray "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven," we do not pray in vain. And this, this prayer that Jesus taught us, is his teaching on 'where we go when we die': on earth as it is in heaven.
As to the hope and resurrection:
I believe they are the same thing. I believe I highly take into account those two (one) things. The Old Covenant Jews' hope was what the Father promised them in books like Isaiah, Joel, Ezekial: It's the pouring out of His Spirit on those who believe. This is because the problem was always a spiritual one, not a physical one. This is what's talked about in the NT. One of the biggest themes in the NT is God's redemption and resurrection of Israel. But it's the fulfillment of God's Israel...the church. It's what's talked about in Galatians 4 and Matthew 21 and Romans 9...that the old Israel (the nation) failed and was rejected and cursed by Christ, and He then shifted terms. Israel is the whole body of believers.
It might surprise you to know that the Bible never speaks of a resurrection as a physical or bodily resurrection. This is something we've applied later in Christendom. In fact, the OT never even uses the word 'resurrection'. This is because the Jews knew that their 'hope' was of a spiritual nature...i.e. the Father's spirit being poured on them like rain.
And I do acknowledge the Dude's comment at first. It doesn't matter what view you hold because what is true is true either way. It's just an easier way (and more polite) of speaking.
To clarify:
I believe the 'hope' in the Old Covenant Jews' definition is the fulfillment of the promise of the Father shown over and over in the Old Testament. It is a spiritual resurrection shown by the Father pouring out His Spirit over His children (believers). See Isa 44:3, Ezek 39:29, Joel 2.
Hope that clarifies.
Anyway, I forgot to direct back to the original question (although I think my previous responses are important to understanding the Bible).
Location - honestly, the Bible doesn't speak of location in regards to the afterlife at anytime definitively.
Sheol is defined as being at the center of the Earth in Scripture, but is it?
Hell is always thought of as 'down'.
Heaven is thought as of 'up' due to verses like Acts 1:11. But this could be due to a collusion of the terms 'Heaven' and 'heavens'. I think this is what is happening here (especially when you study symbolism and typology in the ancient Hebrew culture). But I don't think it's in error, rather it's used to help give us a picture of whatever is being described.
So I don't ever believe Scripture gives us a location of Heaven, Hell or Sheol that's accurate. But rather gives us man's description to help us better talk about these things.
Hudson's Dad,
You said that "the Revelation verse and the Acts 3 verse are talking about the New Covenant and its perfection."
When are you saying you believe that Jesus already returned? Are you saying Revelations 21 and Acts 3 are speaking in past tense about the coming that already passed at the time of their writing? Or are you saying they are speaking (at the time of their writing) about a future event that has since taken place?
How do you respond to essentially the same words from Revelation being in Isaiah 65:
"'See, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.
But be glad and rejoice forever in what I will create, for I will create Jerusalem to be a delight and its people a joy.
I will rejoice over Jerusalem and take delight in my people; the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more.
Never again will there be in it infants who live but a few days, or older people who do not live out their years; those who die at a hundred will be thought mere youths; those who fail to reach a hundred will be considered accursed.
They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
No longer will they build houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. For as the days of a tree, so will be the days of my people; my chosen ones will long enjoy the work of their hands.
They will not labor in vain, nor will they bear children doomed to misfortune; for they will be a people blessed by the LORD, they and their descendants with them.
Before they call I will answer; while they are still speaking I will hear.
The wolf and the lamb will feed together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox, but dust will be the serpent's food. They will neither harm nor destroy on all my holy mountain,' says the LORD."
This passage begins with "I will," pointing clearly to a future event and then details what this future "world" will be like: "former things will not be remembered," "the sound of weeping and of crying will be heard in it no more," "Never again will there be in it infants who live but a few days, or older people who do not live out their years."
If Jesus has already come, why are so many of the characteristics of the restoration He is (was) to bring not evident?
Matt,
I believe that the Acts 3 and Revelation passages were future to the audience being written to, but they are past events to us.
I believe Christ came back to judge Israel once and for all at 70 AD, most notably marked by the destruction of the temple.
The Isaiah 65 passage is describing the New Covenant and the perfection it will bring...only the perfection is spiritual. This is describing a time when God reigns over His people wholly (which is not to say He never had control in the Old Testament, but even Jesus said that the prince of the power of the air reigned in the Old Covenant).
The reason we're confused about not seeing the evidence presented in Isaiah 65 and similar passages is 3-fold:
(1) We don't understand and are not taught from the Old Testament forward, and taught Hebrew symbolism and typology. Instead we are taught from the New Testament to begin with without any knowledge of the Old Testament. However, I believe that apart from the Old Testament, we have no hope of understanding the new.
(2) The language is symbolic, using common Hebrew symbols to describe the events.
(3) We don't understand the previous Old Covenant system fully, and how imperfect it is compared to the New Covenant. I think if we really thought and dwelt and studied on the Old Covenant salvation vs. the New Covenant salvation we'd understand the perfection more and more.
Take Jesus and the disciples before the Ascension. Luke 24 says that Jesus met with the 11 apostles and opened their mind to the Scriptures (this is probably an accurate view of the Kingdom of God they now have). Now continue the narrative in Acts 1:5-7. Jesus says to them that not too many days from now He'll pour out the spirit. What do the disciples ask? "Lord, will you at this time restore the kingdom to Israel?" I.E. Is this the time when you will resurrect Israel giving us the hope that the Father promised? So after having their minds opened by Christ himself, they understood the kingdom of God, the promise of the Father to the true Israel, the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant, the fulfillment of all prophecy...to be defined in a spiritual sense. This blows me away. The restoration in Isaiah 65 is a spiritual perfection and judgment on the Old Covenant system.
The Dude, about your body and soul argument. I wholly think that the separation of body and soul is a Biblical truth. Let me explain:
In the Old Testament, it mentions Enoch "walking with God and was no more [upon the earth]."
The necromancer at Endor was commanded by King Saul to conjure up the soul/spirit of Samuel, which she did.
Elijah was caught up by fiery angelic chariots into the spiritual realm, and he was conscious there.
We see him reappear with Moses to Christ at the Transfiguration. Both Moses (who had died) and Elijah are obviously VERY conscious of what had happened with Christ up to that point, as well as what was about to happen to Jesus shortly in Jerusalem (His "departure" or death).
In Rev. 6 it mentions the "souls" under the altar crying out "How Long?" These were obviously dead folks who had been martyred, yet their souls were VERY conscious apart from their bodies, and this was BEFORE the resurrection.
Paul says in Philippians 1:23 that if he was killed in the persecution that he would "depart and be with Christ, for that is VERY much better." Also, in 2 Cor. 12 Paul talks about his being "caught up" into the "third heaven" (paradise) and hearing "inexpressible words" there. He wasn't sure whether that was an "in the body" or "out of the body" experience. But if "soul sleep" is true, then it could not have been an "out of the body" experience, and the inspired Apostle Paul would have to be considered mistaken for even suggesting that it could have been "out of the body" in the first place. He should have known the true nature of the afterlife, especially since he had been taken there "in the body." His ambiguity here about a POSSIBLE "out of the body" experience in Paradise (the third heaven) does not bode well for the "soul sleep" advocates. If it was not a POSSIBLE way of experiencing Paradise, then Paul would not even suggested it. It seems clear that he is teaching the same thing Jesus did about the unseen spiritual realm which can be consciously experienced "out of the body."
Most of those people given as examples...their bodies were in the ground.
I obviously don't believe that God is going to resurrect the body of His believers. It seems absurd to me that if a whale eats a believer and excretes his body all along the ocean floor that the Lord at the Last Day will magically piece that body back together to raise it.
However, as shown in the Transfiguration, it could be said that our soul can at least take on the physical appearance of our earthly bodies (much like at the end of Return of the Jedi). But our physical bodies are long dust by that point.
HD and all,
Sorry, but I just don't have the time right now to respond to everything you have brought up.
All I can say for now, is that you have mistaken me for a materialist (that is, that i deny any spiritual realm, etc.). The picture of the human person I outlined earlier - one in which body and soul are not separate entities - does not deny the fact that there is an invisible spiritual realm. There very much is, for God is Spirit. But to make the physical and the spiritual completely separate, which you do, is very problematic.
The implications of this are important, some more than others.
1) To be spiritual in your program is to be less real. What I experience daily in my physical body doesn't mean anything because ultimately I will be united with Christ spiritually. So I must deny the body and hope to become more spiritual. This is, at its core, Gnosticism - which happens to be very trendy in Christianity right now. Things like prayer, singing, Bible study, knowledge, etc., are spiritual while things like eating, drinking, working, sleeping, etc., are NOT spiritual. I would challenge this assumption. (The first thing Jesus does when he appears to his disciples after he is resurrected in His body is ask them to cook fish for Him.) This is important. To be spiritual is to be more real. Not to float above the ground, but to be more firmly rooted in it.
2) You haven't addressed the fact that God has created the world and saw that it was Good. Much like dispensationalism, which you are trying so hard to distance yourself from, you ultimately end up at the same place. The earth will be destroyed and some people go off to be with Christ. Ironically, while reacting against this form of eschatology you find yourself closer to the same conclusion.
3) You cannot separate the incarnation from the resurrection. If Jesus really was incarnated, as I think you believe, then he must have been really resurrected. Why incarnate in bodily form if there isn't something good about being in bodily form? The resurrection of the body is God's affirmation of the physical world, among other things.
Ultimately, I think this is at issue here:
"Eschatology pertains not exclusively to the future or even to the near future. It deals not only with the kingdom that is coming but with the kingdom that is already here through the power of the resurrection of Christ from the grave and the gift of the Holy Spirit to the church. Eschatology is neither futurism nor preterism, but instead the revelation of the future in the present..."
The whole point of the resurrection of Jesus is that God has vindicated Jesus' death. What God has done in Jesus is a foretaste of what he will do to all creation. If it is only spiritual, then the Creator God is an impotent God incapable of acting powerfully in the real, physical world he created. Jesus offers not hope to the poor, no liberation for the oppressed, no sight to the blind. Those are physical realities and the best we can do is hope for the future spiritual union with Christ.
However, in Jesus we see a God who has bound himself to his creation, who cares for it, and who desires to heal it. This includes both the spiritual and the physical, not one or the other. When seeing the man with the withered hand, or the man born blind, or the woman who bled, Jesus did not say, "don't worry, after you die, you will be restored." Thank God.
Was Christ physically resurrected? YES! Absolutely, without a doubt. Since Christ's resurrection was physical, won't ours be? NO! Christ's actual resurrection was His going to Hades and coming back out. When He was resurrected from Hades, He was raised into His original body, which was transformed into His heavenly form. This was done as a SIGN to the apostles that He had done what He had promised. The resurrection of Jesus' body verified for His disciples the resurrection of His soul. David had prophesied:
For Thou wilt not abandon my soul to Sheol; Neither wilt Thou allow Thy Holy One to undergo decay. (Psalms 16:10 NASB)
Peter preached that David looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of Christ:
he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY. (Acts 2:31 NASB)
These verses speak of both spiritual death (the soul in Hades) and physical death (decay of the flesh). Jesus was resurrected from both.
The reason there are differences in the way we are raised and the way in which Christ was raised is because of those Biblically defined differences between Christ's body and ours. Differences such as:
Christ is the only one who is both fully God and fully ManGod incarnate (John 1:1-18). Christ is the only one who was virgin born and, therefore, born without original sin (Rom. 3:21-26; 5:12-21; 7:4-11; etc.). Christ is the only one who ever lived a sinless life (Heb. 4:15). Christ is the only one promised that His flesh would not suffer decay (Acts 2:27,31).
His human body was not subject to original sin, nor corruptible (i.e. He was "impeccable"), nor did He ever commit sin and become corrupted. Because of this, He could keep His selfsame body, whereas, we cannot.
Unless Jesus' body had been resurrected, His disciples would have had no assurance that His soul had been to Hades and had been resurrected. The physical resurrection of Christ was essential to verify the spiritual to which it was tied. While the physical resurrection of our bodies would have no point, since we will not continue living on this planet, breathing earth's oxygen, and eating earth's food after we die physically.
As for point #2, I don't get where you think that I think the world will be destroyed. I think the world will go on without end. The Bible says the New Covenant will never end. I don't mean this to offend honestly, but from a number of your responses towards me I really don't think you understand full preterism at all. If you're ever interested in getting a better perspective, I'll give you a good book recommendation.
Let me say something else, too. I'm not trying to distance myself from anything. I think many times labeling ourselves something implies to others that we have a specific agenda or that we are fighting against the opposite view (i.e. see Arminian vs. Calvinist). However, my agenda is to interpret Scripture correctly, and whatever that is is what I'm pursuing and teaching. I seek to teach what the Bible says, not disprove everything around me.
Take that as a disclaimer (not an attack). I always want to make sure that on message boards my tone isn't read as malicious or anything. It's hard to misread.
Hudson's Dad,
1) Most of this conversation is new to me -- this is honestly the first time I have ever heard many of the points you and The Dude are making -- so I am largely an observer. And in that role, I have to admit sympathy for The Dude's confusion over your understanding of hope and the separation of physical and spiritual. It is becoming clear to me that you believe our hope is post-death, once we are freed from this world/body. But The Dude captured my thoughts perfectly, saying: "When seeing the man with the withered hand, or the man born blind, or the woman who bled, Jesus did not say, 'don't worry, after you die, you will be restored.'"
I am confused if you would argue that the world is as it should be today. I believe Isaiah 65 is the source of immense hope, saying the world is not as it should be and promising change. Moving then to the Gospels, my understanding of the Lord's prayer, specifically "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" is that God has invited us to play a role in "bringing heaven to earth," right now. If our hope is merely spiritual, then I don't see a role for Christians to play in feeding the hungry or caring for Creation except to prolong people's physical lives so we can attempt to save their souls. Can you explain any other reason for us to work to alleviate physical, worldly conditions like poverty, disease or pollution?
This is troubling me because I read an article in The Onion a couple of years ago that I think perfectly satirizes many Christians' prioritization of the spiritual over the phyiscal (missionaries gave starving Africans the "Bread of Life" instead of actual bread). My response to this article was to grieve the Church's arrogance. But if our hope is purely spiritual, this approach suddenly makes sense. Why spend limited resources on food when what they really need is the Gospel?
2) I just finished reading Rob Bell's Velvet Elvis and, judging by some of your posts, I assume you would largely disagree with his stuff, but I thought this quote was very applicable to your last comment...and essential for all of us to keep in mind as we engage in dialogue on this blog:
"The idea that everybody else approaches the Bible with baggage and agendas and lenses and I don't is the ultimate in arrogance. To think that I can just read the Bible without reading any of my own culture or background or issues into it and come out with a 'pure' or 'exact' meaning is not only untrue, but it leads to a very destructive reading of the Bible that robs it of its life and energy...The Bible has to be interpreted. Decisions have to be made about what it means now, today...Everybody is resting on a set of interpretations, and we need to be honest about it."
Would love to hear your thoughts...
Matt,
The reason we tend to the needy and poor now is to show who Christ is. The physical is a shadow of the spiritual. Jesus and the apostles used the physical fulfillments to show the perfection of the coming (to them) of the spiritual fulfillment.
The 'hope' spoken of in the Scriptures was applicable to the NT generation. It was the promise of the Spirit. I think careful examination of Isaiah, Joel, and Ezekial, and even Luke 24/Acts 1 help explain that.
As for point #2, I do disagree with the statement. I think it's coming from a man who sounds like he's part of the emergent church movement and is trying to be top considerate. Do I have an agenda though? I said before I didn't, but I do. My agenda is to cause people to be Bereans, to study the Scriptures diligently and to think for themselves and to seek God. I think my home group guys can attest to that because I've been very clear on that since day one.
Now, would I like them to come to know preterism as truth? Absolutely, but the Bible is clear on the fact that eyes must be opened by God to the truth, and that's a hard thing.
The part of that quote that bothers me the most is "...but it leads to a very destructive reading of the Bible that robs it of its life and energy" Because in all honesty, I've never had more fire for the Scriptures, never awed in it the way I do know, never seen God's plan as much whole as I do now, etc. I think, honestly (and remember I've only been a preterist for about 6 years) the Scriptures are wholly more energitic and lively than ever.
Let me know if I missed something you wanted me to answer on.
HD,
I appreciate the consistency in your responses, but I'm still struggling to reconcile these points of view. To say we help the needy to show them who Christ is suggests that caring for the needy is part of who Christ is (a point on which I think we'd all agree). So my question is why did He care for the needy? Did Christ care for the needy to give them promise of the Spirit? Why then did He spend time and effort specifically addressing the needy? Are we not all in need of that promise? Could it be that Christ cares about both the physical and spiritual conditions of His people? If not, why didn't He tell the bleeding woman that her suffering would teach her much about her need for God and when she dies she will finally shed her disease ridden body? Why heal her? Why pray for healing today?
On the Rob Bell quote, my point was to suggest that none of us can present our interpretations of Scripture as pure. That's not to say we shouldn't search diligently for the Truth, but we all rest our understanding of the Word on our personal experiences (and even preferences) and the interpretations of people past and present. Which is a primary reason I love the discussions we have on this blog. We need each others' perspectives to help us break out of the individualized Christianity that dominates our culture. So thank you guys for that.
Matt,
I think that you need to think also about who Christ was talking to in certain circumstances. The haughty Pharisees he admonished because of their hard hearts. On the other hand, the poor and needy were neglected and driven from the 'in-crowds' because they were considered filthy. Christ's impact in feeding and clothing them and giving them hope for a physical restoration gave them love and caring they'd never experienced.
He was fulfilling their physical needs to give them a picture of what would fulfill them spiritually and eternally. The poor and needy are simply the more receptive audience in a way because many groups like the Pharisees and Jews and Sadducees thought they had it all figured out. They were arrogant and vicious to the poor and needy.
The question 'why pray for healing today' is an exaggeration I think. Because you can damn well pray all you like, but you're not necessarily gonna get healed. Don't you think Christ could've healed Paul of his sicknesses or his thorn in the flesh? However, he chose not to. Why? I think because Christ was using his physical pain to teach him spiritual and everlasting realities.
Again, let me know if you ever think I'm skirting an issue. I'm trying to answer everything I think you're asking.
HD,
You are correct in asserting that I do not fully understand full preterism. I have never met a single person who holds to that view, I have never read a reputable scholar who defends the position, and frankly, the books I have read that defend it do not seem to deal with the biblical texts consistently or take the entire canon of scripture in account. Trying to be an orthodox Christian, I cannot agree with your view, so I admit ignorance. But let me also admit my sincere desire to converse intelligently and reasonably with you. And you have been more than gracious with me where I have probably not deserved it, so I am greatful...
My apologies for such a late reply, but I have been too busy to get into it here...
Post a Comment
<< Home