Posted on 07/22/2012 12:14:15 PM PDT by wmfights
Thank you.
The question of how we view Heaven isn't important. It doesn't matter because we will be transformed like Christ, just as Moses and Elijah was on the Mount of Transfiguration. And it must have been pretty impressive because when Peter looked back at the ONE event that anchored his thought, it wasn't the resurrection of Christ but the Mount of Transfiguration. What Christ, Moses and Elijah looked like is unclear but Peter who never met Moses or Elijah knew instantly who they were and wanted to accord them honor by building the a booth. And Moses and Elijah in turn just wanted to be in the presence of Christ.
But that aside, it seems to me the church has moved more towards a Greek (Platonism) view of God and eschatology is only a part of that. As briefly mentioned, this often is reflected in Christians unable to comprehend God's wrath and sovereignty. The Jews clearly had no such problem. They understood that all things come from God and He is in control. Paul goes a step further and states that all is for our own good. This wrath and sovereignty interplay is reflected in numerous verses throughout the Old and New Testament, yet many will scratch their heads and say, “Well, I guess it's a mystery that we'll find out when we get to Heaven.” This is Platonism.
It's probably why God had the Jews write His scriptures.
“Heaven will be a return to how we were in the Garden before the fall.”
What will that mean, to return to how we were in the Garden before the fall? Would it mean that man would have no knowledge of good and evil?
Great “friendly response” 8^)
I really appreciate your perspective...
How many Fundamentalist Protestants, JW's, and other advocates of a redeemed material creation understand that in classical, historical chrstianity Adam's time in the garden was not meant to be his permanent state but a mere period of testing, after which he would have been translated (without death) to a spiritual heaven? I certainly never realized this for most of my life. To many of us the idea that Adam brought death into the world meant that had Adam not sinned he would have lived on earth forever, not that he would have passed out of material existence by some other means. To me and many others the only reason a "spiritual heaven" existed as all was to hold the "saved" souls who otherwise would have been cutting the mustard forever on a paradise earth.
The predominant chrstian position (the classical one upheld by the ancient liturgical churches and, I assume, by classical Reformation Protestants) is that the Garden of Eden has already been "restored" by being replaced by the chrstian church. Just as Adam would have spent a brief period on earth and then passed over without death to "heaven," redeemed man now passes through the church instead and eventually goes to heaven by dying. Thus there will be no restored Eden in the future because the chrstian church with its sacraments and ceremonial has literally taken its place. The church is the kingdom of G-d, the the millenium, and the "redeemed world." All the terminology in both scripture and in liturgy of a wonderful redeemed world without sin and without death already exists in the church, which is the ultimate fulfillment of all prophecies. Hence the unrelenting hostility to what is termed a "political messiah" by classical chrstianity.
In fact, many of these "platonists" blame Communism itself on belief in a paradise earth at the end of time and regard the rejection of such a thing in favor of a spiritual heaven after death (or after the physical world has been absolutely destroyed) as the only antidote to Communism! If you don't believe me, a simple web search will show that "chiliasm" and "messianism" is a rejection of "G-d's plan" in favor of a "naturalistic revolution." Many chrstian anti-Semites like the late Fr. Denis Fahey critiqued the "Jewish revolutionary spirit" and defined the conflict of our age as "Jewish naturalism" vs. "chrstian supernaturalism." What must be understood here is that by using the terms "naturalism" and "supernaturalism" Fahey was not referring to orthodox religion vs. materialistic reductionism but quite literally to the "spiritual heaven" vs. the redeemed physical earth. (This example was not given to start a fight with Catholic FReepers. Fr. Fahey simply believed along these lines and so did many conservative Catholics of an earlier era, as well as radical Catholic traditionalists of today. He was chosen as an example of this mindset and nothing more.)
I myself grew up believing that Communism was caused by religion abandoning the earth for heaven. If religion promises nothing but heaven after death, then this world is ours to do with as we please. The only comfort in this world would lie, not with a future Divine intervention, but on human activity, and in fact some religious people would try to earn their way to their spiritual reward by creating a temporal (and very disappointing) "paradise" on earth. Of course, the ultra-quietistic dependence on Divine intervention alone (without the human responsibility to obey G-d's commandments) is an error I now recognize.
The notion of whether "heaven" is a super spiritual world that awaited Adam or the natural state in which he was created affects other areas of theology as well. For example, because Adam was not created in what was meant to be his permanent position on a paradise earth, because "heaven" awaited even him, then human merit has a role to play. In fact, one reason for the Catholic belief in purgatory and Orthodox belief in a mediate state (though not called purgatory) is that "heaven" requires a purity not even the newly-created Adam had. Adam himself, even in Eden, had to "merit" heaven; therefore, even chrstians in sanctifying (or deifying) grace are apt to spend much time after death before entering heaven. For Fundamentalist Protestants and other advocates of paradise earth as the end in creation (rather than a temporary home in which man is to merit heaven), the notion that anything other than "being saved" is necessary to enter "heaven" is ridiculous. What did Adam do to merit being created in the Garden? Nothing, of course. Similarly, nothing more is required to enter "heaven" at death than to have been "saved." Man can no more be expected to have undergone any sanctification process to enter heaven than Adam could have undergone to be created in Eden. It's a shame more people don't see this point of contention.
This is a genuinely interesting and important topic. I did not post this to antagonize or attack anyone, but simply because I have had to deal with this own issue in my own life and I know it's much more important than the way people treat it.
MadDawg, thank you for your respectful and thoughtful response to the original poster. That was very kind of you.
Please continue!
The failure to completely discredit this heresy can be seen today by how many Christians think of Heaven as strictly spiritual. We will have resurrected bodies.
Good to see you say that.
It buggs me to no end that popular Christianity's picture of the afterlife (especially as reflected in hymnody) is so often just "die and go to heaven". The emphasis in the New Testament is on the resurrection.
Heaven will be a return to how we were in the Garden before the fall.
Potentially still subject to temptation and fall, then?
The so-called philosophical teaching of that era seems to have been widely distributed while as we know, the scriptures were reserved from the general public to the highest ranking clerics and apparently these pagan philosophers...
And as it is today; a person goes into a religion or theology without first becoming a child of God, aka, getting saved...No Holy Spirit guidance in the scriptures...It would be and apparently is an easy step to become a product of your environment...And that environment is that final authority comes from intellectual knowledge and man's wisdom, philosophy...
What I find interesting is that some of these sources speak of interpreting the 'allegorical' meaning of the verses or words thru a spiritual sense...
This tells me two things: one that only they (the thinkers) have the ability to be 'spiritual insiders' and two:
the average intelligent person is beholden to their spiritual ability only, to know what God says and means...And of course this is hogwash, and deception at it finest...
And so it holds that over the centuries, not only are those church goers conditioned from birth that they cannot understand the scriptures, and that the real Truth comes from their exceedingly educated (in religion and philosophy) priests and bishops, they believe it to the point that they will not even investigate the scriptures to see if what they are told is the truth...But hey, where can you actually see 'religion' up front and close more than in a Catholic church???
The bottom line is, those teachers study about the bible, they study religion and philosophy...But unlike many of us, none of them actually study the Bible, the very words of God...
Kabbalistic Cosmology
and its parallels in the
‘Big-Bang' of Modern Physics
Adam McLean ©
http://www.levity.com/alchemy/luria.html
In Isaac Luria's book, 'Ten Luminous Emanations' he describes gravity and electromagnetism with the phrase binding by striking and he preceded Newton and Maxwell by miles...
Read the book and watch The Elegant Universe, I had to!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/elegant-universe.html
And most people recognize it as political utopia, something more along the lines of turning earth into heaven, or better yet, making a heaven of hell.
One of the problems with carrying on a discussion in this subject area is that the dichotomies don’t line up real nice. What’s present and what’s future (eschatological) is not exactly divided between matter and spirit.
It is from the stand point that it reflects our understanding of God's plan for us.
But that aside, it seems to me the church has moved more towards a Greek (Platonism) view of God and eschatology is only a part of that. As briefly mentioned, this often is reflected in Christians unable to comprehend God's wrath and sovereignty.
I agree with you completely.
al: What will that mean, to return to how we were in the Garden before the fall? Would it mean that man would have no knowledge of good and evil?
In the garden Adam existed in a physical world without sin. Adam walked with God, talked with God. God was present and there was no barrier between God and man. After sin entered a barrier was erected between God and man. IOW, Eden was the Temple with no need of a Holy of Holies.
In Heaven, the New Jerusalem will exist with no Temple because there will no longer be a barrier between us and God. However, our connection is not just spiritual, but is also physical (like it was meant for us in Eden). I think we will know of good and evil, but no desire for evil will exist, nor will any evil exist because the cause of it will be gone.
I don't think so because only the redeemed will be there in their resurrected bodies. Deception will be in the lake of fire.
Rev. 21:27 But there shall by no means enter it anything that defiles, or causes an abomination or a lie, but only those who are written in the Lamb's Book of Life.
Thank you for answering. So you are saying that man will still have free will but he will have no desire to sin since he will be in the presence of God. In essence he will be perfectly obedient to the word of God.
I will have to ask. I've never heard this.
Gen. 2:15 Then the LORD GOD took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it.
I read that passage as God intending for Adam to stay in the garden.
The church is the kingdom of G-d, the the millenium, and the "redeemed world." All the terminology in both scripture and in liturgy of a wonderful redeemed world without sin and without death already exists in the church, which is the ultimate fulfillment of all prophecies. Hence the unrelenting hostility to what is termed a "political messiah" by classical chrstianity.
This may in part reflect an amillenialist view, but from the beginning there have also been premillenialists who disagreed.
For Fundamentalist Protestants and other advocates of paradise earth as the end in creation (rather than a temporary home in which man is to merit heaven), the notion that anything other than "being saved" is necessary to enter "heaven" is ridiculous. What did Adam do to merit being created in the Garden? Nothing, of course. Similarly, nothing more is required to enter "heaven" at death than to have been "saved." Man can no more be expected to have undergone any sanctification process to enter heaven than Adam could have undergone to be created in Eden. It's a shame more people don't see this point of contention.
It's an interesting point, but it's sin that entered and changed everything. Once sin entered the picture something had to be done to ransom those that are affected by it.
But the beauty is when it seems all is lost God intervenes. The printing press created a Reformation. The internet created an environment where children of God can gather from all over the world and discuss Scripture. We don't have to have degrees from all the "leading institutions" to work through the meaning of a passage and the history behind it.
The bottom line is, those teachers study about the bible, they study religion and philosophy...But unlike many of us, none of them actually study the Bible, the very words of God...
You're right. When we open Scripture for ourselves instead of relying on others to tells us what the words mean a whole new world opens up. We are given the opportunity to know our Lord and Master better. Obviously, we need to be guided by the Holy Spirit and I think try to pursue the Truth where ever it might lead.
Is that free will?
I've seen proponents of free will argue that God is dependent upon their decision making.
Proponents of predestination argue that we have free will in that without God's intervention our desire is to sin.
I would define free will as the fundamental choice to think ( identify, integrate knowledge with logic) or not to think (evade, fail to see, deny or fake reality. If we wish to live as man then we must choose to think.
I think your analysis is very good except incomplete. The purpose of heaven and hell is inconsequential in my mind. The real issue is whether there is a God and what God is like if He has revealed Himself.
If I understand your analysis correctly, based upon your understanding of God, then God expects us to do certain things for Him in order for us to receive His favor. This view is certainly different from the Protestant view that believes God is present to help us and He neither seeks nor wants our help. He only wants us to acknowledge Him.
BTW-I should clarify WHY heaven and hell is inconsequential. There are only three possibilities.
If a person has faith that God does not exist, then heaven and hell doesn’t matter.
If a person believes God exists and that they must court God’s favor through some type of works or rituals, then one has to wonder what heaven and hell would be like.
If a person believes God exists and He wants those around Him who simply love Him, then heaven is a certainty.
All that really matters is your view of God.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.