Time to reason

Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

At church on Sunday, I was part of an interesting, short discussion. Someone suggested that within a Christian framework, when a believer dies he/she is instantly placed into eternity with God, meaning it will seem to the person that he/she is instantaneously translated into his/her resurrection body, although much temporal, earthly time may have passed. This view is both tenable and reasonable. I do not want to split hairs unnecessarily, but technically speaking, since only God is eternal, having no beginning or end, only God can have eternal life. Those in Christ, shall inherit everlasting life, which has a beginning, but no ending. In New Testament Greek according to J. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, the same Greek word can be defined in English as either eternal or everlasting. The Greek word aíwvios (aionios) is explained as meaning perpetual, used of past time or past and future as well, eternal, for ever, and everlasting. Strong (1986: 8). Strong provides only one word for eternal or everlasting from the New Testament. The everlasting life of those in Christ is not eternal, but exists within time and continues to run within time and therefore this type of life should be properly defined as everlasting life as opposed to eternal life. Something that is eternal according to Simon Blackburn is not moving, and is beyond time, whereas something that is everlasting is running within time. Blackburn (1996: 126). In the archives of November 2006, I wrote an article entitled: Eternal vs. Everlasting. I should state that some linguists although having skills I do not have, are not necessarily theologians or philosophers and therefore may translate a Biblical word as eternal, correctly, in a sense, without knowing the philosophical difference between the concepts of eternal and everlasting.

Another issue comes to mind concerning time. It was suggested that in the process of dying, the believer will not exist in time. This I find troubling. Since God is infinite (limitless) and omniscient, he can exist in eternity and knows all things. He, therefore, does not reason in the same finite way that human beings do. Created finite (limited) beings need time to process all thoughts. They would need time to reason. If persons are merely translated into everlasting existence and from his/her perspective are instantaneously changed into the resurrection body, then for the actual amount of time this takes (years, decades, centuries, millennia) each person does not have consciousness and could not possibly process thoughts.

In 2 Corinthians 12, Paul describes being caught up into Paradise, and if he is explaining conscious thoughts on the experience, he existed within time. A weaker alternative idea could be that the Lord merely placed these experiences in his spirit and mind, and this could have taken place without Paul existing in time. Jesus tells one of the criminals he was crucified with, in Luke 23:43, that today he would be with Jesus in Paradise. Laurence Porter explains that the promise of Paradise is one for today. Porter (1986: 1226). Now it is of course possible that what Jesus really meant was that, from the criminal’s perspective, once he dies, in what seems like today, he will have his resurrection body and be in Paradise, although it will not actually take place today. Or, it could mean that the criminal in spirit form would exist that day in a place of the spiritual realm known as Paradise. Perhaps the criminal experienced the same place described by Paul in 2 Corinthians.

Luke 16:19-31 describes a dialogue between a certain rich man residing in Hades and Abraham who is within Abraham’s bosom. Erickson writes that there are indications that the righteous in Scripture are received into spirit form in Paradise, which is also known as Abraham’s bosom. He mentions Luke: 16:19-31 as an example. Erickson (1994: 1193). It can be deduced that the unrighteous in spirit form, from the period of death until resurrection, live in Hades. Erickson (1994: 1193). The implication here being that the unrighteous are eventually placed into the lake of fire of Revelation 20. I must point out that Luke 16:19-31 is viewed by many scholars as parable, and not an actual story and historical event. Dr. Douglas Finkbeiner of Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary points out that scholars such as Guthrie, Blomberg, and Harris would conclude that Luke 16:19-31 is a parable. More specifically, it can be designated as an example story. Finkbeiner (2004: 1). I am not an expert on the book of Luke, and I do not have difficulty with accepting the idea of this story being parable and not historical. This idea would not eliminate the possibility from the context of this passage, and other Biblical notions of Paradise, that Paradise is an actual place outside of our present realm where the spirit of a person trusting in Christ consciously resides in time until the resurrection. I have no doubt that the culminated Kingdom of God described in Revelation 21-22, must take place within time, as it would not make sense for human beings to be given spiritual, physical bodies (1 Corinthians 15:44) that do not exist within time, space, and matter.

BLACKBURN, S. (1996) ‘Eternity’, in Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy,Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FINKBEINER, DOUGLASE (2004) Interpreting Luke 16: Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man-Parable or History?, Lansdale, PA , Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary.

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company.

Additional:

Please scan http://casadipace.blogspot.com/ for a series on creation.

Facebook and Blogger

Burrard Inlet, Burnaby BC

1. Since being invited recently to join Facebook by a friend in England, it has been an educational experience. Many of my good and acquaintance friends from Canada, United Kingdom, United States, Australia and worldwide are on the website, and it provides me with an opportunity to learn about their lives and for them to discover what is going on in my life. Recently on Facebook, I have decided to post a link to a few of my articles from thekingpin68 and satire and theology, and I have noticed through Site Meter that I have received some views from persons on Facebook. Please note that Site Meter does not provide me with the person’s name, so I do not know who is viewing! Most of the friends are Christians, but some are not and it allows me to potentially share Christian theological concepts with those within and outside of the Christian Church. John Calvin explains that although God enlightens the unbeliever to become a believer through the Spirit of God, that preaching is a human means by which this occurs. Calvin (1543)(1996: 164-165). Calvinistic Christianity when properly presented should not be negative towards evangelism and preaching since although God elects persons to salvation, only God knows who shall be elected and therefore Christians should respectfully preach and teach all who are open-minded, humanly speaking. There are multiple reasons why I Facebook, and sharing theological ideas in one of them. God through human preaching and teaching can influence both the regenerate and unregenerate as he desires. Of course with blogging, theological teaching and learning is a major priority for me. I have received some good feedback from my Facebook friends in regard to my blog articles, although I would imagine that there are critics as well, but no one has spoken up as of yet!

2. I have been thinking that God willing, once I am established as a professor, I may consider setting up a website similar to those from Christian Research Institute and John Ankerberg. Contrary to how some televangelists may operate, a multi-million dollar a year salary would not be the objective, but rather it would be to provide a much-needed theology and apologetics ministry and also supplement my income as a professor, as I have spent 16 years as a full-time student. I would be interested in reading comments regarding the idea of me potentially in the future setting up an apologetics ministry where I could provide some free material and sell books, CDs, and DVDs of my own work and other material from legitimate quality Christian teachers and scholars. I could also provide related materials from non-believers as well. I do not think it should be expected of me to set up a ministry without receiving some kind of income, and also do not think it right to be aiming to set up a multi-million dollar, primarily profit orientated corporation that is also a ministry.

CALVIN, JOHN (1543)(1996) The Bondage and Liberation of the Will, Translated by G.I. Davies, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

Universalism

Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (photo from trekearth.com) I have not been to Asia as of yet. I reason that this is a fantastic photo. The following is a fairly short non-exhaustive, somewhat speculative article on universalism. Within the concept of soul-making theodicy, John Hick explains that once a human being dies a conscious personality continues to exist. Hick (1978: 12). He concludes that for soul-making to succeed post-mortem existence must include the ability to make moral and spiritual choices. Hick (1978: 13). Robert Smid writes that Hick believes that humanity will complete their soul-making via the afterlife, as a loving God must desire the salvation of all people. Smid (1999: 12). Hick reasons that since God has perfect knowledge of the human heart he would eventually succeed in bringing all persons in devotion to him. Hick (1970: 381). Hick holds to universalism, which John Ankerberg and John Weldon explain is the theological idea that salvation is universal and therefore as a result each person will eventually be redeemed in heaven in God’s presence. Ankerberg and Weldon (1999: 503). John Kreeft and Ronald Tacelli explain that universalism is universal salvation and has been considered by some well known orthodox Christians over the centuries as a viable alternative to hell, although Kreeft and Tacelli reject this concept. Kreeft and Tacelli (1994: 286). D.B. Eller writes that universalism affirms the idea that eventually all souls will be released from penalties of sin and restored to God. Eller (1996: 1128). 

In Matthew 7:13-14, Jesus uses an illustration relating to the ultimate destiny of individuals and explains that few persons enter by the narrow gate, and the wide and broad way of destruction is found by many. William Barclay points out, that Luke 13:24 is presenting a similar idea which may have come from the same original source, but reached the author of Luke from a different tradition. Barclay (1975: 97). In Luke, Jesus explains that many will strive to enter by the narrow gate, but shall not be able to. Barclay (1975: 97). This idea from Jesus would fit with a compatibilistic theology where God uses soft determinism to elect individuals to salvation. From this perspective, human beings with the use of free will alone cannot choose God. Within a sovereignty perspective, God will choose whom he wills to be present in his culminated Kingdom, and those he elects shall believe and follow him without being forced or coerced to do so. I reason that as God regenerates an individual by the Holy Spirit, he simultaneously determines that the person shall freely with the use of a limited, but significant free will, believe in Christ. Sentimentally, universalism is humanly more comforting, but it appears that Jesus disagreed with Hick on universalism. 

Laurence E. Porter describes a scenario in Luke 13:24-28 where some religious persons are rejected by God. Porter (1986: 1211). Jesus did not accept the theology that a sincere religious devotion alone would lead one to God’s presence in the culminated Kingdom of God. Let me point out that everlasting existence apart from God is absolutely and positively, not my hope for any individual person, but my theological findings are driven by research and not sentiment. I see no good reason to believe that human beings that have rejected the Biblical God throughout their lives with a corrupt nature and the resulting sinful thoughts and actions would ever in post-mortem existence come to Christ, unless determined to do so by God. Biblically, there appears to be no salvation for those outside of Christ upon death. Hebrews 9:27, from the New American Standard Bible states: As inasmuch as it is appointed for man to die once and after this comes judgment. For deceased children and those who are mentally deficient, it can be deduced that since they do not arrive at a reasonably certain point of consciously rejecting God, and reasonable understanding of the punishment for this rebellion, they may be regenerated by God and included within the culminated Kingdom of God after death. I would view this as reasonable speculation. Biblically persons appear to be judged for sins, which result from a sinful nature, and not for the sinful nature itself. In Revelation 20, those persons who are thrown into the lake of fire are judged for their deeds, and therefore persons are judged for deeds and not nature. A non-regenerated child or mentally deficient person would still have a corrupt nature unacceptable for God’s presence, but I speculate that a certain mental capacity is required to be everlastingly punished for sinful deeds. In contrast it could be stated that children and the mentally deficient outside of Christ, could be everlastingly separated from God and judged only according to what they know. I view this as a theological possibility that cannot be overlooked. But, the concept of everlasting separation in the New Testament appears to be one of God separating those from his presence that embraced their sinful nature and committed sinful deeds with a definite and not largely deficient understanding. 

ANKERBERG, JOHN AND JOHN WELDON (1999) Encyclopedia of Cults and New Religions, Eugene, Oregon, Harvest House Publishers.

BARCLAY, WILLIAM (1975) Introduction to the First Three Gospels, Philadelphia, The Westminster Press. 

ELLER, D.B. (1996) ‘Universalism’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, p. 1128-1130. Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

HICK, JOHN (1970) Evil and The God of Love, London, The Fontana Library. 

HICK, JOHN (1978) ‘Present and Future Life’, Harvard Theological Review, Volume 71, Number 1-2, January-April, Harvard University. 

KREEFT, PETER and RONALD K. TACELLI (1994) Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, Illinois, InterVarsity Press. 

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

Thoughts on blog comments and thoughts on questionnaires

Vancouver, BC (photo from trekearth.com)

1. I was in the Seattle-Tacoma and surrounding area with Chucky, for a concert Friday. Seattle-Tacoma is a larger metropolitan area in population than Greater Vancouver and it sure seemed that way as well. I enjoy Washington State, but the gridlock getting over the American border, driving through Seattle-Tacoma and surrounding area in rush hour, and getting in out and of the White River Amphitheater was tiring and irritating. Thankfully, the concert was excellent, even with standing out in the lawn area with some rain for three hours. The rain was light and refreshing. I enjoy the beautiful nature the Lord has made, even though the problem of evil exists in creation (Genesis 3).

2. Unfortunately not all emails sent to me have been arriving. One of Chucky’s emails and one of Wade’s for satire and theology did not arrive. I am apologetic, but my modem and router do not have built in fans and with the summer heat here in my loft, they overheat and need to be turned off and on frequently. I reason that when my modem and router overheat that some emails are delayed and perhaps do not arrive. The odd email also does not arrive due to my ISP. Please know that my desire is to publish every respectfully made blog comment that relates to my blog in general terms. I really appreciate support of my blogs and wish to support other quality blogs! One does not have to agree with me on every point, but I ask that comments relate to my overall blog material (not necessarily the particular article every time) and are respectful. I do not mind someone promoting his/her blog by leaving a comment, but I ask that a relevant, respectful comment be made. A person has tried to leave alien related comments on this blog a few times, and I will not publish those comments since they are promotion with no attempt to interact with my overall blog material. If one wishes to promote his/her blog through a comment, please at least attempt to deal with my blog material. I will not accept comments that are primarily SPAM, unless I wish to make a point by criticizing the material. I do not expect a blogger to comment on every comment I make on his/her blog, but I will try and answer all comments here as long as I can.

3. With this is mind, and realizing that not all my blog comments necessarily arrive to a fellow blogger, when I leave a blog comment elsewhere, I am attempting with God’s help to thoughtfully relate my comment to the article, or sometimes express my legitimate appreciation of the blog. I also greatly appreciate blogging friends, and look at theological blogging as ministry. I as well fully admit to be promoting my blogs. I am a student that is in debt and wish to promote my career, and myself, and I am unapologetic in that fact! I have been a student for 16 years without full-time income and no one can fairly state that I am unduly driven by money, but I need to promote my theological career and by commenting on other blogs, I promote my own blogs and my career. Others may blog for a hobby only and that is fantastic, but my work on the internet may very likely tie into my theology career in the future, God willing. Therefore (and I have someone in mind, but not someone I have dialogued with), if I leave a comment on a blog and it is not published, I will likely not comment again on that blog, unless I know the person decently well from blogging and realize there was probably some type of mess up with the message delivery, or I receive some type of message with a good reason on why it was not published. I do not think a blogger should pick and choose which comments he/she likes of mine and only publish ones he/she prefers. If I reason this is taking place, I will not comment anymore. If a blogger does not like my comments or is questioning the motives (always a dangerous thing to do!) he/she can email me or challenge my comments on his/her blog, or else I will not comment on the blog further. Since I make a strong effort to write well thought out comments that relate to the blog article, or at least the blog, I will not accept having my comments censored without a good explanation. The business of doing philosophical theology is a tough one, and in Christ I need to be humble, loving and forgiving, but I also require respect.

4. As expected with my questionnaire data, aspects of my sovereignty theodicy have been somewhat rejected in favour of free will theodicy approaches. This does not in any way change my views, but I appreciate the fact that these findings provide my PhD with empirical data that adds originality. I will attempt to publish results on thekingpin68 once my PhD is passed, God willing. I do not wish to thoroughly discuss the results on thekingpin68 until my University has officially reviewed them. Statistically there are 213 valid respondents. Validity is the concern with the integrity that is generated from a piece of research. Bryman (2004: 545). Validity is usually measurable in statistics. Bryman (2004: 545). There are 66 questions on the questionnaire, or 66 variables. Variables represent different types of data that have been compiled including numbers, strings, currency and data. SPSS (2006: 51). The frequency is the number of people and percentage that belong in each variable category. Bryman (2004: 227). Julie Pallant notes that frequencies include all the individual variable items that make up the represented scales. Pallant (2004: 42).

Thank you very much, once again to all questionnaire participants! I am sorry some of this article content is a little heavy, but with this type of blog it is unavoidable! I firmly believe that in today's world, respectful, intense type of interaction is sometimes needed.

BRYMAN, ALAN (2004) Social Research Methods, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

PALLANT, JULIE (2004) SPSS Survival Manual, Maidenhead, Berkshire, Open University Press.

SPSS 15.0 BRIEF GUIDE (2006) Chicago, SPSS Inc.

Russ;)