Announcement

Collapse

Theology 201 Guidelines

This is the forum to discuss the spectrum of views within Christianity on God's foreknowledge and election such as Calvinism, Arminianism, Molinism, Open Theism, Process Theism, Restrictivism, and Inclusivism, Christian Universalism and what these all are about anyway. Who is saved and when is/was their salvation certain? How does God exercise His sovereignty and how powerful is He? Is God timeless and immutable? Does a triune God help better understand God's love for mankind?

While this area is for the discussion of these doctrines within historic Christianity, all theists interested in discussing these areas within the presuppositions of and respect for the Christian framework are welcome to participate here. This is not the area for debate between nontheists and theists, additionally, there may be some topics that within the Moderator's discretion fall so outside the bounds of mainstream evangelical doctrine that may be more appropriately placed within Comparative Religions 101 Nontheists seeking only theistic participation only in a manner that does not seek to undermine the faith of others are also welcome - but we ask that Moderator approval be obtained beforehand.

Atheists are welcome to discuss and debate these issues in the Apologetics 301 or General Theistics 101 forum without such restrictions. Theists who wish to discuss these issues outside the parameters of orthodox Christian doctrine are invited to Unorthodox Theology 201.

Remember, our forum rules apply here as well. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Sex in New Creation

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by seanD View Post
    We know there are apparently people not immortal in the new world outside of "the elect" because there is need for a Tree of Life.
    We do not know that there are such people. We do not know that there is a need for a Tree of Life. We do not know that the "tree of life" with twelve kinds of fruit described in John's dream (Revelation 22:1-2) is a literal object. I think it's probably not, in fact.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by RBerman View Post
      We do not know that there are such people. We do not know that there is a need for a Tree of Life. We do not know that the "tree of life" with twelve kinds of fruit described in John's dream (Revelation 22:1-2) is a literal object. I think it's probably not, in fact.
      Well, yeah. That would seem to be the default position to take whenever there is difficulty in scripture, especially for a preterist. In that sense, we don't really know anything is not just allegorical or symbolic.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by seanD View Post
        Well, yeah. That would seem to be the default position to take whenever there is difficulty in scripture, especially for a preterist. In that sense, we don't really know anything is not just allegorical or symbolic.
        It seems a reasonable default position for a dream which is lousy with symbolism from start to finish.

        Comment


        • #49
          You mean the tree of life that's watered by a river of the Holy Spirit?

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
            It seems a reasonable default position for a dream which is lousy with symbolism from start to finish.
            Then what's to stop from assuming the entirety of Rev 22 is just symbolism? There is no literal new heaven and earth, this is just symbolic of the fact that the Christian becomes a new creation in Christ. And all the newly created Christians as a whole represent the new Jerusalem. It's consistent if we are to assume the Tree of Life as well as all the vivid imagery surrounding it is symbolic. See the slippery slope? There is no sound criteria other than each of our interpretation as it suits us, which then leads to a myriad number of different interpretations. It becomes disingenuous to selectively pick and choose wherever scripture becomes problematic.
            Last edited by seanD; 03-29-2014, 03:29 PM.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
              You mean the tree of life that's watered by a river of the Holy Spirit?
              So what form is the Holy Spirit in? Are you actually arguing that it's impossible for God to manifest as flowing water?
              Last edited by seanD; 03-29-2014, 03:37 PM.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by seanD View Post
                And all the newly created Christians as a whole represent the new Jerusalem.
                Well, actually...

                Source: Revelation 21

                And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband...

                Then came one of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues and spoke to me, saying, “Come, I will show you the Bride, the wife of the Lamb.” And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God, having the glory of God, its radiance like a most rare jewel, like a jasper, clear as crystal.

                © Copyright Original Source

                Comment


                • #53
                  So no one agrees with me that Jesus may be speaking of a spiritual resurrection in heaven? I still see no reason for him to attack the doctrine of soul sleep in this context, if this was not his point.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                    So no one agrees with me that Jesus may be speaking of a spiritual resurrection in heaven? I still see no reason for him to attack the doctrine of soul sleep in this context, if this was not his point.
                    You said earlier that "Jesus seems to be referring to people being "resurrected" immediately after death". I really don't see how you'd arrive at that conclusion.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Because Isaac was alive when the burning bush was talking to Moses

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Obsidian View Post
                        Because Isaac was alive when the burning bush was talking to Moses
                        Yes, alive but without body, and awaiting a bodily resurrection.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Jesus seems to refer to it as the resurrection, however.

                          Matthew 22
                          31 But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying,
                          32 I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.

                          Maybe the only reason they can't have sex is because they don't have any bodies.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by RBerman View Post
                            It seems a reasonable default position for a dream which is lousy with symbolism from start to finish.
                            After reading this again, I find this statement kind of odd from you. Why would you think Revelation of John was a dream (when it's not indicated as a dream) and why would you think it's "lousy with symbolism from start to finish"? Do you not believe the vision and what was written down about it was inspired? Can you elaborate.

                            Comment

                            widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
                            Working...
                            X