|
Forums118
Topics9,232
Posts196,213
Members1,325
| |
Most Online5,850
Feb 29th, 2020
|
|
|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
|
17
|
18
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
|
24
|
25
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
|
|
Here is a link to show exactly where the Space Station is over earth right now: Click Here
|
|
|
9 registered members (TheophilusOne, dedication, daylily, Daryl, Karen Y, 4 invisible),
2,520
guests, and 5
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
7 - The Nature Of Man
#38776
07/22/00 12:24 AM
07/22/00 12:24 AM
|
|
|
7. The Nature of Man Man and woman were made in the image of God with individuality, the power and freedom to think and to do. Though created free beings, each is an indivisible unity of body, mind, and spirit, dependent upon God for life and breath and all else. When our first parents disobeyed God, they
denied their dependence upon Him and fell from their high position under God. The image of God in them was marred and they became subject to death. Their descendants share this fallen nature and its consequences. They are born with weaknesses and tendencies to evil. But God in Christ reconciled the world to Himself and by His Spirit restores in penitent mortals the image of their Maker. Created for the glory of God, they are called to love Him and one another, and to care for
their environment. (Gen. 1:2628; 2:7; Ps. 8:48; Acts 17:2428; Gen. 3; Ps. 51:5; Rom. 5:1217; 2 Cor. 5:19, 20; Ps. 51:10; 1 John 4:7, 8, 11, 20; Gen. 2:15.) ------------------
In His Love, Mercy & Grace Daryl Fawcett :)
|
|
|
Re: 7 - The Nature Of Man
#38777
07/21/01 05:22 AM
07/21/01 05:22 AM
|
|
|
The Nature of Man (After Sin)
Seventh-day Adventist Believe…A Biblical Exposition of 27 Fundamental Doctrines, Pages 88-93.The first consequence of sin was a change in human nature that affected interpersonal relationships, as well as the relationship with God. Many scriptural passages, including particularly the account of the Fall, make it clear that sin is a moral evil-the result of a free moral agent’s choosing to violate the revealed will of God. (Gen. 3:1-6; Rom. 1:18-22). Biblical definitions of sin include: “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4, KJV), a failure to act by anyone “ who knows the good he ought to do and doesn’t do it” (James 4:17), NIV) and “whatever is not from faith” (Rom. 14:23). One broad inclusive definition of sin is: “Any deviation form the know will of God, either of neglect to do what He has specifically commanded or of doing what He has specifically forbidden.” Sin knows no neutrality. Christ states “He who is not with Me is against Me” (Matt12:30). Failure to believe in Him is sin (John 16:9). Sin is absolute in its character because it is rebellion against God and His will. Any sin, small or great, results in the verdict “guilty”. Thus “whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumbles in one point, he is guilty of all” (James 2:10). Frequently sin is spoken of only in terms of concrete and visible acts of lawbreaking. But Christ said that being angry with someone violates the sixth commandment of the Decalogue, “You shall not kill” (Ex. 20:13, RSV), and that lustful desires transgress the command “You shall not commit adultery” (Ex. 20:14). Sin, therefore, involves not only overt disobedience in actions but also thoughts and desires. Sin produces guilt. From the Biblical perspective, guilt implies that the one who has committed sin is liable to punishment. And because all are sinners, the whole world is “guilty before God” (Rom. 3:19) If not cared for properly, guilt devastates the physical, mental, and spiritual faculties. And ultimately, of not resolved it produces death-for “the wages of sin is death” (Rom. 6:23) The antidote for guilt is forgiveness (Matt. 6:12), which results in a clear conscience and peace of mind. This forgiveness God is eager to grant repentant sinners. To the sin-burdened, guilt ridden race, Christ graciously calls, “Come to Me, all you who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest” (Matt:28). The seat of sin is what the Bible calls the heart-what we know as the mind. From the heart “spring the issues of life” (Prov. 4:23). Christ reveals that it is the person’s thoughts that defile, “for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies” (Matt. 15:19). It is by the heart that the entire person-the intellect, will, affections, emotions, and body-is influence. Because the heart is “deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked” (Jer. 17:9), human nature can be described as corrupt, deprave, and thoroughly sinful. How great was the depravity of humanity? At the cross humans murdered their Creator-the ultimate parricide! But God has not left man without hope. History reveals that Adam’s descendants share the sinfulness of his nature. In prayer, David said, “In Your sight no one living is righteous” (Ps. 143:2; cf. 14:3). “There is no one who does not sin” (1 Kings 8:46). And Solomon said, “Who can say, ‘I have made my heart clean, I am pure form my sin’?” (Prov. 20:9); “There is not a just man on earth who does good and does not sin” (Eccl. 7:20). The New Testament is equally clear, stating that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23) and that “if we say we have no sin, we deceive e ourselves, and the truth is not in us” (1 John 1:8). Paul said, “In Adam all die” (1 Cor. 15:22). In another place he noted, “Through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned” (Rom. 5:12). The human heart’s corruption affects the total person. In this light Job exclaims, “Who can bring a clean thing out an unclean? No one!” (Job 14:4). David said, “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me” (Ps. 51:5). And Paul stated that “the carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (Rom. 8:7,8). Before conversion, he pointed out, believers were “by nature children of wrath,” just like the rest of humanity (Eph. 4:3). Although as children we acquire sinful behaviour through imitation, the above texts affirm that we inherit our basic sinfulness. The universal sinfulness of humanity is evidence that by nature we tend toward evil, not good. How successful are people in removing sin from their lives and from society? Every effort to achieve a righteous life through one’s own strength is doomed. Christ said that everyone who has sinned is “a slave of sin”. Only divine power can emancipate us from this slavery. But Christ has assured us, “If the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed” (John 8:36). You can only produce righteousness, He said, if “you abide in Me” because “without Me you can do nothing” (John 15:4,5). Even the apostle Paul failed to live a righteous life on his own. He knew the perfect standard of God’s law but he was not able to achieve it. Recounting his efforts, he said, “I do not understand my own actions. For I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate.” “I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I do.” Then pointed to the impact of sin in his life: “Now if I do what I do not want, it is no longer I that do it, but sin which dwells within me.” In spite of his failures he admired God’s perfect standard saying, “I delight in the law of God, in my inmost self, but I see in my members another law at war with the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin which dwells in my members. Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death?” (Rom. 7:15, 19, 20, 22-24, RSV). Paul finally acknowledged that he needed divine power to be victorious. Though Christ he put aside a life according to the flesh and began a new life according to the Spirit (Rom. 7:25; 8:1). This new life in the Spirit is the transforming gift of God. Through divine grace, we who are “dead in trespasses and sins” become victorious (Eph. 2:1 3, 8-10). The spiritual rebirth so transforms the life (John 1:13; Johan 3:5) That we can speak of a new creation-the “old things have 0passed away” and “all things have become new” (2 Cor. 5:17). The new life, however, does not exclude the possibility of sinning (1 John 2:1)
|
|
|
Re: 7 - The Nature Of Man
#38778
08/05/06 08:34 PM
08/05/06 08:34 PM
|
|
|
10 TOPICS THAT DEMONSTRATE THE SUPERIORITY OF THE HOLISTIC VIEW OF HUMAN NATURE OVER THE DUALISTIC VIEW
The dualistic view of the human nature and destiny (belief in the immortality of the soul) cannot be considered superior in any way to the holistic understanding of these themes. We would challenge the advocates of that position to present what superior aspects they could find in their understanding of the question in comparison with the enumeration that we present below of items in which one can perceive the indisputable superiority of the holistic view over the understanding of immortality of the soul.
1.) Much more Christ-centered. The holistic understanding stresses that only in Christ we have hope of obtaining immortality, at the resurrection of the just ones, not being something we already possess inherently in the form of an immortal soul. “He who has the Son has the life” (cf. John 5:28, 29; 1 John 5:12; 1 Corinthians 15:51-54).
2.) Greater foundation on the basic doctrine of righteousness by faith. There is only one who is good, Jesus said (see Mat. 19:17). In an absolute sense only God is just, while we are infinitely far from possessing justice of our own. The holistic vision highlights that as we have no justice in ourselves by which to appear before the Supreme Judge to obtain approval (see Isaiah 64:6), we also don’t have inherently the gift of immortality, which only belongs to God (1 Timothy 1:17; 6:16) and is granted to us through the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Timothy 1:10).
3.) Greater emphasis and valuation of the theme of Christ’s advent. For those who believe in the immortality of the soul the theme of Christ’s second coming doesn’t receive the same importance, for, in practical terms, such event becomes irrelevant, since the eternal inheritance occurs at death. This explains the emphasis on the second advent and the conclusion of the evangelization work among Seventh-day Adventists by every means possible (radio, TV, literature, personal witnessing, public lectures, health and social assistance). The fulfillment of Matthew 24:14 is the great preoccupation and motivation of the SDA Church, which has the largest number of penetrated lands and proportionally the largest number of missionaries among all those who are engaged in the task of world evangelization.
4.) Greater consistency with the theme of each one’s judgment. Those who believe in the immortality of the soul turn the theme of the final judgment into a non-sense thing. Why and what for will a final judgment be set, since people at their death go directly to their final destination—saved ones to “the glory”, lost ones to a site of tortures or, at least, a place not agreeable at all, where they will be expecting a punishment already defined?
5.) No identification with pagan beliefs. The identification of all pagan peoples with dualistic concepts demonstrates the superiority of the holistic view. Nobody is capable of indicating at least one pagan people that have renounced to belief in souls and spirits of people (or even of animals and inanimate things) to believe in the final resurrection as the only means to return to existence after death, a point even highlighted in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus, one of the foundations of the dualistic view (cf. Luke 16:31).
6.) Better defense against dangerous doctrines. The holistic view is the best protection and antidote against subtle errors that exist or has come to existence in these last times, such as spiritualism, Catholic doctrines as the purgatory and intercession of the saints, Mormonism, New Age, Eastern religions, etc., especially in the face of Christ’s and Paul’s warnings regarding the growing deceits of the final times (Matthew 24:24; 2 Timothy 3:1-5).
7.) Higher estimation of the divine love and justice. The vision of God’s justice and love is harmed by the belief in an eternally burning hell, with punishments totally out of proportion with the impenitent ones’ guilt. According to the holistic view, the pay will be proportional to the guilt and it will be liquidated, not made eternal (Matthew 5:26 and 18:30).
8.) Greater consistency with the meaning of basic Bible terms. Even though in the Bible language there are many mentions to “soul” and “spirit”, the Scriptures don’t authorize any concept of either an immortal “soul” or “spirit”. Besides informing us that only God is possessor of immortality, the Bible states that the soul can die (Ezekiel 18:4; James 5:20), not the opposite of it.
9.) Greater valuation of bodily health. It is well known that the Christians who maintain the dualistic understanding of human nature conceptualize the present life dualistically. They tend to consider the cultivation of the soul as more important than the care of the body. The physical well being of the body is often intentionally ignored, or even suppressed. That explains the holistic preoccupation of Seventh-day Adventists with health and the emphasis on the care of the body as “temple of the Holy Spirit”, to be wholly consecrated to the Lord (1 Corinthians 3: 16, 17).
10.) A more mature and real picture of the world to come. The popular notion of an eternal paradise, where glorified souls will spend eternity wearing white robes, playing harps, sailing on clouds and drinking the nectar of gods is alien to the Scriptures. The Bible speaks of the resurrected redeemed ones dwelling on this planet, that has been purified and transformed, turned into a perfect world at the second coming of the Lord (2 Peter 3:11-13; Romans 8:19-25; Revelation 21:1). The “new heavens and new Earth” (Isaiah 65:17) are not a remote and inconsequent spiritual retreat in some corner of the Universe. Rather, they are the present heavens and Earth renewed back to its original perfection. – By Prof. Azenilto G. Brito.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 7 - The Nature Of Man
#92547
11/02/07 07:04 PM
11/02/07 07:04 PM
|
|
|
10 QUESTIONS FOR THOSE WHO BELIEVE IN THE IMMORTALITY OF THE SOUL
1st. – Why does Jesus say to His followers that He would go to “prepare a place for you”, but the emphasis on the occupation of said abodes is not when they died and their souls went to heaven to occupy them, but the moment of their reunion with Him when He returns (John 14:1-3)?
Note: The popular opinion is that at death the deceased’s souls head to heaven, when they will meet Christ and all the others who went there before. However, it seems strange that Jesus says nothing regarding these abodes being available before the time of His return, implying that only then He will take His ones with Him to occupy said abodes.
2nd. – Why, when comforting the sisters of Lazarus, besides having used the sleep metaphor before—“Our friend Lazarus has fallen asleep . . .”—He did not tell them that the deceased was in the heavenly glory, but pointed to them the resurrection hope (John 11:17-27)?
Note: Among the religious people it is so common to comfort the bereaved ones telling them how the deceased is well, happily enjoying the bliss of a better world far from the suffering and pain of this life. However, that is not the picture in the dialogue during Lazarus’ death, both on the part of Christ and that of his bereaved sisters. The theme of their conversation is not the supposed heavenly destination of the faithful follower of Christ, but the FUTURE resurrection of the dead ones.
3rd. – When Christ resurrected Lazarus, after His friend had been dead for four days, did He bring him from heaven, hell or purgatory? If it was from heaven, then He did a bad thing to him for He brought him back to this Earth’s suffering. If it was from hell (improbable, for he was a follower of the Master), He granted him a second salvation opportunity, which is unbiblical.
Note: The logic of this question is very clear: Lazarus rose from the tomb and brought no information about the afterlife. If he had something to tell, undoubtedly John evangelist would have the greatest interest and would be pleased to reproduce his words and testimony in his gospel.
4th. – Why both Christ and Paul stress that the dead ones will rise as they hear the voice of the archangel and the divine trumpet, being “awakened” from death’s sleep (Matthew 24:30; 1 Thessalonians 4:16), when their souls supposedly come from heaven, hell, purgatory, well awakened, in order to reincorporate?
Note: The sleep metaphor is constant both in the Old and New Testament, representing death. In the face of the clear texts that deal with the unconsciousness of the dead ones (who “don’t praise the Lord”—Psalm 115:17) it can be noticed why such metaphor is used, as in Psalm 13:3—“sleep in death”; in Daniel 12:2, many “who sleep in the dust of the earth”; John 11:11, “Lazarus has fallen asleep”; 1 Thes. 4:13, “those who fall asleep”; 1 Cor. 15:18, “those who have fallen asleep in Christ. . .” it’s because during death a condition of UNCONSCIOUSNESS prevails for those who died. Some more clear texts about that are: Psalm 146:4; Ecclesiastes 9:5,10; Isaiah 38:18,19; 1 Kings 2:10; 1 Kings 11:43; Job 14:10-12; Jeremiah 51:39.
5th. – Why does Paul, as he discusses specifically and in detail in 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 and 1 Corinthians 15, how the final encounter of all saved ones with the Savior will be, nowhere describes souls coming from heaven, or from wherever, to reincorporate?
Note: As at the beginning of human’s history there is no “immortal soul” introduced in the original man, nothing is also said on souls coming from heaven, hell or purgatory to reincorporate when those who are gone appear during the resurrection.
6th. – Paul also says to the Thessalonians that they should not regret for their dear ones who are “asleep”, concluding with the recommendation: “Therefore, encourage one another with these words” (vs. 18). He never says that they already enjoyed the heavenly bliss, but that were “asleep” and would be awakened. Why does the encouragement stem from the promised resurrection, not from the souls of their dear ones being already in heaven?
Note: This question is also of indisputable clarity. The consolation would proceed from the resurrection hope, not from the fact that those who “slept” would be already enjoying the heavenly glories.
7th. – Paul says clearly that without the resurrection of the dead—confirmed and guaranteed by that of Christ Himself—“those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost” (1 Cor. 15:16-18). Why would they be lost, since they should rather be guaranteed with their souls in heaven?
Note: The dominant theme of the chapter is the resurrection of the dead—“For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either” (1 Cor. 15:16)—thus the logic of the question is inescapable. In 1 Thessalonians 4:14 it is said that Christ will bring with Him "those who have fallen asleep", but the entire tenor of the passage and the global Bible teaching is that He will bring them, not from heaven, but from their graves (see John 5:28, 29; Daniel 12:2).
8th. – Later on in the same chapter, Paul confirms what he had said in vs. 16 a 18, stressing that he risked to die fighting beasts in Ephesus, implying that if he died he would also having be lost (vs. 32). In his commentary, “let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die” isn’t he indicating clearly that without the resurrection there is no hope of eternal life?
Note: On the light of the previous question, this reveals an irrefutable evidence that Paul didn’t think of an “immortal soul” going to heaven when he died, for he didn’t harbor such a hope. His expectation is expressed in 2 Tim. 4:6-8 where he speaks that “on that day” he expected to receive his eternal reward. For Paul, were not for the resurrection, it wouldn’t even be worthwhile to live, since death would be the end of everything. It's interesting to see what vs. 30 and 31 say: “As for us, why do we endanger ourselves every hour? I die every day. . .” The idea of death/resurrection without anything in-between is very clear.
9th. – Why does Job speak of his hope of seeing his Redeemer “in my flesh”, when He finally “will stand upon the Earth”, not that he would see Him when his soul went to heaven (Job 19:25)?
Note: In chapter 14 patriarch Job applies a mortal blow on the belief in the immortality of the soul, comparing death with water from the sea that disappears and a riverbed that dries up. Now he stressed that he expected to see his Redeemer only when He stood upon the Earth (the 2nd advent of Christ), and when he had his body back, covered with his skin, not when his soul went to heaven.
10th. – Why do the words “soul” and “spirit” appear so many times in the Bible, in different meanings and contexts, but are never accompanied by the adjectives “immortal”, “eternal”, “perpetual”, besides the fact that instead of declaring that the soul will never die, what we read is about death of the soul, both in the Old and New Testaments (Eze. 18:4 and James 5:20)?
Note: An embarrassing fact to the dualist Christians is that no pagan people, either of the present or the past, is known as having renounced to their belief in souls and spirits (even attributing these to such things as volcanoes, rivers, forests, and animals) to believe that “the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28, 29). The belief in the final resurrection of all dead ones is a characteristic of genuine Christianity, which doesn't accept notions of clear pagan origin. It is the result of the first lie uttered on this planet: “You will not die” (Gen. 3:4). --
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 7 - The Nature Of Man
#92548
11/02/07 07:16 PM
11/02/07 07:16 PM
|
|
|
10 SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ON THE FOUNDATION OF THE BIBLE TEACHING ON MAN’S NATURE
1 – Why didn’t Moses, in his detailed report of man’s creation, leave any hint of an “immortal soul” as an essential component of human’s life, exclusive of his existence at Creation?
Note.: That would be the right moment to deal with the subject, since Moses offers so many details of the divine acts in the Creation work in general, and of man’s formation, in particular.
2 – Why does Moses employ the same language (exact words) for “living soul”, both regarding man and the animals (compare Gen.2:7 with 1:20 and Lev. 11:46)?
Note.: Translators of some Bible versions translated the Hebrew words nephesh hayyah as “living creature” when referring to the animals, however, there isn’t the least difference. It is exactly the language Moses used to deal with “living soul” referring to man.
3 – Why doesn’t Moses make a difference between man’s breath of life and that of the animals, treating them on the same basis, even utilizing the same words (Gen. 2:7; 1:30, 6:17)?
Note.: The breath of life cannot represent something immaterial, immortal, that survives matter because that is not the Bible definition for “soul”, and such word never comes modified by the adjectives “immortal” or “eternal” throughout the Bible.
4 – How can one prove that the fact that God blew particularly the life breath into man turns it into an “immortal soul”, when there isn’t the least information about that by the author, which would be of very much importance to define human nature?
Note.: The detail of a “separate”, “private” creation of man, compared to that of the animals, is a very weak “evidence” in favor of the dualistic view because the detailing of man’s creation involves the main character of God’s work, besides that of the woman. The animals are mere co-stars in the scenery, which pictures the divine preoccupation with the being created at His image and likeness, something that doesn’t characterize the animals.
5 – How can one prove that the fact that God blew the breath of life particularly in man makes that an “immortal soul”, when there is clear information, both in the creation report and millennia later, in the words of wise man Solomon, that the same breath of life is attributed to the animals (see Ecl. 3:19-21)?
Note.: Solomon engages himself in a profound reflection on the human life and shows that “everything is vanity”, since not even in death man takes an advantage over the animals. If he believed in the immortality of the soul, he would not have employed such language to avoid ambiguity and to not convey materialistic notions. But even his description of man in death, with the removal of the breath of life, is similar to the way the psalmist refers to the death of the animals (compare Ecl. 13:7 with Psalm 104:25-29).
6 – Why would man need an immortal soul, since he was not planned to die, according to the original project of God’s creation, rather would live eternally as a physical being, in a physical paradise (as would also be the case of the animals, by the way. . .)?
Note.: Sin is an intruder in this planet, which brought physical and spiritual death to man. But the divine “contingency plan” is the final resurrection, a measure taken AFTER sin, as part of His restoring plan. Resurrection integrates the serpent’s head crush in view of the conflict between good and evil (Gen. 3:15). Victory on death occurs due to the resurrection of the dead, not to the fact that the individual overcomes it for possessing a spiritual element that prevails over death (see 1 Cor. 15:52-55).
7 – When exactly that “immortal soul” is introduced into the living being? Is it when the egg is fertilized? Is it when the baby leaves the mother’s womb and breathes by the first time, since the parallel “breath of life/immortal soul” is established?
Note.: The difficulty in establishing the beginning of the possession of that “immortal soul” is immense, especially when the dualists link directly “breath of life/immortal soul”. For the fetus DOESN’T BREATH in the uterus, being involved with fluids until the mother brings it out in birth.
8 – Since Moses is considered by many scholars and by the Jewish tradition as the author of the very ancient book of Job, doesn’t it seem strange that in such book he doesn’t leave the least clue of a dualistic notion, instead he pictures the patriarch expressing a holistic view, not a dualistic one (see following note)?
Note.: The book of Job offers a mortal blow on the dualistic notion. The patriarch likens death to a river that gets dry and a lake that has its waters drained, and when he refers directly to being with God, he speaks of the time when the Redeemer “He will stand upon the Earth”, without leaving the least idea of a soul going to encounter Him (see 14:7-14 and 19:25-27).
9 – Where exactly is that “immortal soul” located? Since the parallel “breath of life/immortal soul” is established, and Job declares at a certain point “as long as I have life within me, the breath of God in my nostrils” (Job 27:3), is each one’s nose the location of that “immortal soul”?
Note.: If the parallel “breath of life/immortal soul” is valid, this soul really leaves and gets back into the system, at least in large measure, all the time, leaving as “contaminated” (carbonic gas) and entering new breath of another substance (oxygen to “purify” the blood). That seems a very strange thing to be something fluidic that has conscience, thus remaining forever after death.
10 – Isn’t it a tremendous coincidence that all pagan peoples always had as their ideological characteristic the belief in the immortality of the soul, even attributing souls and spirits to animals or even inanimate things, such as forests, lakes, volcanoes?
Note.: There are no news of any pagan people, from this time or the past, that renounced to their belief in “souls” and “spirits”, to adopt the belief that “a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out--those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned” (John 5:28, 29).
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 7 - The Nature Of Man
[Re: Azenilto]
#92556
11/03/07 05:27 AM
11/03/07 05:27 AM
|
|
|
Interesting studies Azenilto.
Thanks for sharing.
|
|
|
Re: 7 - The Nature Of Man
[Re: crater]
#103524
10/11/08 06:24 PM
10/11/08 06:24 PM
|
|
|
IN THIS TABLE, HOW TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THE BIBLE TERMS “SOUL” AND “SPIRIT”
The word ‘spirit (in Hebrew, neshamah or ruach; in Greek pneuma) is utilized in the Bible in different meanings, such as:
* Moral faculties, disposition, character, thought, feelings, etc.: Psalm 51:10; Isaiah 19:14; Luke 1:17; 1 Corinthians 4:21; Philippians 1;27; James 3:16, etc.
* Energy, willingness, courage, mind: Genesis 45:27; Judges 15:19; Job 17:1; Psalm 143:7.
* Breath, current of air: Genesis 7:15, 22; Job 14:10; 27:3; Ecclesiastes 12:7; Lucas 8:55; Revelation 11:11.
* Life: Job 12:10; Revelation 13:15.
* Divine Power: Genesis 1:2; Isaiah 44:3; 61;1; 1 Corinthians 6:19.
* Angel: 2 Chronicles 18:18 a 20; Acts 8:26 e 29; Hebrews 1:13, 14 (compare with Psalm 8:5).
The word ‘soul’ (in Hebrew nephesh; in Greek psuchê) can be translated as:
* Life: Genesis 9:4; 1 Kings 19:14; Job 6:11; Mark 3:4; Acts 20:10.
* Person: Genesis 46:27; Leviticus 17:12; Acts 7:14; 27:37.
* Heart: Exodus 23:9; Proverbs 23:7; Ephesians 6:6.
* Body: Numbers 6:6; 9:6.
* As a reflexive pronoun (like in “self” in “enjoy yourself”): Ecclesiastes 4:8; Luke 12:19 (cf. vs. 17).
IMPORTANT: Although there are all these different forms in which ‘soul’ and ‘spirit’ are used, in no instance it is said that they mean “an abstract and immortal entity which survives the matter”. The word immortal is only once found in the Bible, and that in reference to the Divinity, in 1 Timothy 1:17 y 6:16: “Now unto the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only wise God, be honor and glory forever and ever”.
No text in the entire Bible is found that speaks of either an immortal soul or immortal spirit.
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
7 - The Nature Of Man
#103526
10/11/08 06:36 PM
10/11/08 06:36 PM
|
|
|
“Regular” Christians Harboring “Irregular” Ideas
Proclamation! magazine, in its July/August issue, decided to discuss in detail the nature of man issue. Editor Colleen Tinker illustrates the “comfort” she got in renouncing to SDA “soul sleep” doctrine in the face of her father’s death, thinking how good that he is in heaven now, as any “regular” Christian (in her own words), would teach. Nothing to do with waiting for the resurrection in the tomb, as this strange and unique SDA doctrine has it.
First, it is amazing how those who leave us so soon acquire the questionable labeling and distorted description of our teachings, adopting the same language of those who oppose us, but which DON’T CORRESPOND TO THE REAL FACTS. Seventh-day Adventists DON’T teach any “soul sleep” doctrine, and she should know better. So, this distortion of our teachings is just the beginning of so many other similar ones along the magazine.
It is interesting to read about “regular” Christian, with the quote marks by her. Why did she put the “x” referring to ‘regular’? Probably it is because she doesn’t feel very secure in determining what a “regular” Christian is, after all, as she contacts so many different branches and currents, and interpretations, and worldviews, and internal divisions in the Evangelical field. Is a Pentecostal, who defends fiercely the speaking in tongues, a “regular” Christian in her view? And how about those who teach the election of just a few for salvation, as God decreed they were the chosen ones, while all the others end up in the bottomless pit of brimstone and fire, with their bodies and souls suffering there for evermore, unlucky as they were for not deserving God’s selection? And what to say regarding the ones who baptize babies, which is frowned upon by others who don’t agree with infant baptism? And, speaking of baptism, there are those who do it just by immersion, criticizing churches that adopt aspersion, or sprinkling. Are they both “regular” Christians? And those who teach the secret rapture, disputed by others who have a different eschatological perspective? Finally, how about those who adopt homosexuals in the regular Church life as a valid option for their lives, allowing them even to reach the ministry? Would that qualify as “regular” Christians?
Anyway, she then quotes two texts totally out of their due context, but later on we will discuss in greater detail the implications of this false doctrine of immortality of the soul. By the way, these folks seems to ignore totally that it has been more and more discarded by important Bible scholars in the Protestant (even Catholic) fields.
Let’s see how Dr. Samuele Bacchiocchi, who is the author of Immortality or Resurrection?, a book highly considered by scholars of different persuasions, mentions this fact:
Dualistic View of Human Nature is Under Massive Attacks
The Biblical view of human nature and destiny has attracted considerable scholarly attention in recent years. Leading scholars of different religious persuasions have addressed this question in articles and books. A survey of the studies produced during the last fifty years or so, reveals that the traditional dualistic view of human nature has come under massive attack.
Scholars seem to outdo one another in challenging traditional dualism and in affirming Biblical wholism. Reading the scholarly literature in this field, one almost gets the impression that Christianity is coming out of a stupor and is suddenly discovering that for too long it has held to a view of human nature derived from Platonic dualism rather than from Biblical wholism.
. . . our fundamental Adventist belief in the unconscious state of the dead, is finally being accepted as a biblical teaching by numerous Bible scholars of different persuasions. Somebody counted over 400 scholars cited in my book. They include such well known scholars as George Eldon Ladd, Oscar Culmann, John R, Stott, and Clark Pinnock. (. . .)
The belief in conscious life after death is propagated today in sophisticated ways through mediums, psychics, “scientific” research into near-death experiences, and New Age channeling with the spirits of the past. The outcome of all of this is that the body-soul question is attracting unprecedented attention even in the scholarly community. A survey of the scholarly literature produced in recent years clearly shows that this question is being hotly debated by leading scholars of different religious persuasions.
The central issue is whether the soul can survive and function apart from the body. In other words, is human nature so constituted that at death the soul, that is, the conscious part, leaves the body and continues to exist while its “container” disintegrates? Traditionally, the vast majority of Christians have answered this question in the affirmative. They have believed that between death and the final resurrection of the body, God preserves the existence of their human disembodied souls. At the resurrection, their material bodies are reunited with their spiritual souls, thus intensifying the pleasure of paradise or the pain of hell.
This traditional and popular view has come under massive attack in recent years. An increasing number of leading evangelical scholars are abandoning the classical, dualistic view of human nature which sees the body as mortal, belonging to the lower world of nature, and the soul as immortal, belonging to the spiritual realm and surviving the death of the body. Instead, they are accepting the Biblical wholistic view of human nature in which the whole person, body and soul, experiences death and resurrection.
Several factors have contributed to the abandonment of the classical dualism on the part of many scholars. One of them is a renewed study of the Biblical view of human nature. A close examination of the basic Biblical terms used for man (body, soul, spirit, flesh, mind, and heart) has led many scholars to recognize that these do not indicate independent components, but the whole person seen from different view points. “Recent scholarship has recognized,” writes Eldon Ladd, “that such terms as body, soul, and spirit are not different, separable faculties of man but different ways of viewing the whole man.”
Virtually any part of the body can be used in the Bible to represent the whole human being. There is no dichotomy between a mortal body and an immortal soul that survives and functions apart from the body. Both body and soul, flesh and spirit in the Bible are part of the same person and do not “come apart” at death.
Dualism under Attack
Numerous Biblical scholars in recent times have argued that Old and New Testament writers do not operate with a dualistic view of human nature, but with a monistic or wholistic one. The outcome of these studies is that many today are questioning or even rejecting the notion that Scripture teaches the existence of souls apart from bodies after death.
Church historians support these conclusions by claiming that a dualistic view of human nature and the belief in the survival of disembodied souls were brought into the Christianity by Church Fathers who were influenced by Plato’s dualistic philosophy. This explains why these beliefs became widely accepted in the Christian church even though they are foreign to the teachings of the Bible.
Philosophers and scientists also have contributed to the massive assault against the traditional dualistic view of human nature. Philosophers have attacked traditional arguments that the soul is an immortal substance that survives the death of the body. They have proposed alternative theories according to which the soul is an aspect of the human body and not a separate component.
[To be continued in the next frames]
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 7 - The Nature Of Man
[Re: Azenilto]
#103527
10/11/08 06:40 PM
10/11/08 06:40 PM
|
|
|
[Continued from previous frame]
Scientists, too, have challenged the belief in the independent existence of the soul by showing that human consciousness is dependent on and influenced by the brain. At death, the brain ceases to function and all forms of consciousness stop. To scientists the cessation of all mental functions at death suggests it is highly unlikely that the mental functions ascribed to the soul can be carried out after death.
These concerted attacks on dualism by Biblical scholars, church historians, philosophers, and scientists have led liberal and even some conservative Christians to reject the traditional dualistic view of human nature. In his book Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting, John W. Cooper summarizes the outcome of this development, saying: “Liberals rejected it [dualism] as old-fashioned and no longer intellectually tenable. And some conservatives Protestants argued that since we ought to follow the Scripture alone and not human traditions, if anthropological dualism is a human tradition not based on Scripture, we ought to reform our confessions and purge them of such accretions of the Greek mind. The soul-body distinction has come under attack from many directions.”
Dualists Are Concerned
These developments have raised serious concerns on the part of those who find their traditional dualistic understanding of human nature severely challenged and undermined. Cooper’s book represents one of many attempts to reaffirm the traditional dualistic view by responding to the attacks on dualism. The reason for this response is well expressed by Cooper: “If what they [scholars] are saying is true, then two disturbing conclusions immediately follow. First, a doctrine affirmed by most of the Christian church since its beginning is false. A second consequence is more personal and existential–what millions of Christians believe will happen when they die is also a delusion.”
There is no question that modern Biblical scholarship is causing great “existential anxiety” to millions of sincere Christians who believe in their disembodied souls going to heaven at death. Any challenge to traditionally cherished beliefs can be devastating. Yet, Christians who are committed to the normative authority of Scripture must be willing to reexamine traditional beliefs, and change them if proven to be unbiblical.
Strong emotional reactions are to be expected from those whose beliefs are challenged by Biblical scholarship. Oscar Cullmann, for example, found himself bitterly attacked by many who strongly objected to his book Immortality of the Soul or Resurrection of the Dead? Incidentally, the book is largely drawn from the Ingersoll Lecture on the Immortality of Man delivered in 1955 at Harvard University’s Andover Chapel. He wrote: “No other publication of mine has provoked such enthusiasm or such violent hostility.” In fact, the criticism became so intense and so many took offense at his statements that he deliberately decided to keep silent for a time. I should add that Cullmann was not impressed by the attacks against his book because he claims they were based not on exegetical arguments, but on emotional, psychological, and sentimental considerations.
Tactics of Harassment
In some cases, the reaction has taken the form of harassment. Respected Canadian theologian Clark Pinnock (he wrote the Foreword to my book) mentions some of the “tactics of harassment” used to discredit those evangelical scholars who have abandoned the traditional dualistic view of human nature and its related doctrine of eternal torment in a fiery hell. One of the tactics has been to associate such scholars with liberals or sectarians like the Adventists. Pinnock writes: “It seems that a new criterion for truth has been discovered which says that if Adventists or liberals hold any view, that view must be wrong. Apparently a truth claim can be decided by its association and does not need to be tested by public criteria in open debate. Such an argument, though useless in intelligent discussion, can be effective with the ignorant who are fooled by such rhetoric.”
Despite the tactics of harassment, the Biblical wholistic view of human nature which negates the natural immortality of the soul and, consequently, the eternal torment of the unsaved in hell, is gaining ground among evangelicals. Its public endorsement by John R. W. Stott, a highly respected British theologian and popular preacher, is certainly encouraging the trend. “In a delicious piece of irony,” writes Pinnock, “this is creating a measure of accreditation by association, countering the same tactics used against it. It has become all but impossible to claim that only heretics and near-heretics [like Seventh-day Adventists are considered] hold the position, though I am sure some will dismiss Stott’s orthodoxy precisely on this ground.”
Stott himself expresses anxiety over the divisive consequences of his new views in the evangelical community where he is a renowned leader. He writes: “I am hesitant to have written these things, partly because I have great respect for longstanding tradition which claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture, and do not lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the worldwide evangelical community has always meant much to me. But the issue is too important to be suppressed, and I am grateful to you (David Edwards) for challenging me to declare my present mind. I do not dogmatize about the position to which I have come. I hold it tentatively. But I do plead for frank dialogue among evangelicals on the basis of Scripture.”
Stott’s plea for a “frank dialogue among evangelicals on the basis of Scripture” may be very difficult if not impossible, to realize. The reason is simple. Evangelicals are conditioned by their denominational traditional teachings, just as much as the Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox. In theory, they appeal to Sola Scriptura, but in practice, Evangelicals often interpret Scripture in accordance with their traditional denominational teachings.
[To be continued]
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
Re: 7 - The Nature Of Man
[Re: Azenilto]
#103528
10/11/08 06:44 PM
10/11/08 06:44 PM
|
|
|
[Continued from previous frame]
If new Biblical research challenges traditional doctrines, in most cases, Evangelical churches will choose to stand for tradition rather than for Sola Scriptura. The real difference between Evangelicals and Roman Catholics is that the latter are at least honest about the normative authority of their ecclesiastical tradition.
To be an “Evangelical” means to uphold certain fundamental traditional doctrines without questioning. Anyone who dares to question the Biblical validity of a traditional doctrine can become suspect as a “heretic.” In a major conference held in 1989 to discuss what it means to be an evangelical, serious questions were raised as to whether such persons like John Stott or Philip Hughes should be considered evangelical, since they had adopted the view of conditional immortality and the annihilation of the unsaved. The vote to exclude such theologians failed only narrowly.
Why are evangelicals so adamant in refusing to reconsider the Biblical teachings on human nature and destiny? After all, they have taken the liberty of changing other old traditional teachings. Perhaps one reason for their insistence on holding to the dualistic view is that it impacts on so many other doctrines.
We noted earlier that what Christians believe about the make-up of human nature largely determines what they believe about human destiny. To abandon dualism also entails abandoning a whole cluster of doctrines resulting from it. This may be called “the domino effect.” If one doctrine falls, several others fall as well. To clarify this point, we briefly consider some of the doctrinal and practical implications of classical dualism. This should alert the reader to its complex ramifications.
_______
Source: http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/endtimeissues/et_171.htm
Note: I would recommend enthusiastically Dr. Bacchiocchi’s book. It is sufficient by itself alone to destroy all the sophistry of those who come up with the proclamation of such a false doctrine as that of immortality of the soul, which doesn’t put anybody closer to Jesus Christ (and we prove that), rather just brings terrible notions of pagan origin to whoever accepts that first devil's lie.
What Happens When We Die? Christopher Lee Thinks He Knows, But Does He?
First, again, as I said in the beginning, it’s amazing how these former SDA’s forget so fast what they have learned as members of the SDA Church as to the REAL meaning of our doctrines. They adopt so easily the distorted views of our opponents, with whom they gladly allied themselves. We DON’T teach soul sleep, and we DON’T teach that “spirit” means BREATH and that is all. “Insisting that pneuma/ruach means ‘breath’ in the Bible violates the Christian concept of God’s being”, pontificates Mr. Christopher Lee, self proclaimed “theology junkie” (as his biographical data brings at the end of his article) violating, on his part, the ethics of not distorting the teaching of others.
To refresh Mr. Lee’s memory, how about this table which shows the different meanings for the terms “soul” and “spirits” in the Bible?
[To avoid repetition, see the table to understand the meaning of the terms “soul” and “spirit” exactly before the beginning of this discussion]
[To be continued]
A. G. Brito
Sola Scriptura Ministry
|
|
|
|
|
Here is the link to this week's Sabbath School Lesson Study and Discussion Material: Click Here
|
|
|
