1

Seems like the truth is probably some where in the middle.

2

Thanks Joe, excellent work. That looks like it took some time to put together and I appreciate it.

I've often been confused on this point:
2. There will be a bodily resurrection of all people who have ever lived.

I understood that people who have died are already in heaven, or hell, (or purgatory in some versions)? So that's unclear to me when taken together with Point 2.

3

And, of course, many of us are NON-dispensational premillenialists, a viewpoint that I believe makes good sense of the Biblical data, and also has enjoyed wide support throughout Christian history.

In response to ~DS~, what happens immediately to those who die is not precisely clear in the Bible. It is possible that those who die in Christ go to right to heaven, but it is clear that heaven is not the final destination of the redeemed. Those purchased by Christ's blood will eventually populate a new heavens and a new earth, clothed in their resurrected bodies. Some people believe that in the interim, believers and non-believers are in a kind of "holding tank" place - Sheol - sort of a waiting room until the judgment. But the data are not clear.

It is also pretty clear that Hell is a place that currently does not exist (if the word "currently" has any meaning in God's realm) but will be created for "the devil and his angels" after the judgment, and where those who side with the devil and his angels will join them in torment. So there is nobody in Hell right now, since it hasn't been created yet. At least, according to my best reading of Scripture.

4

i'd like to know more about the antichrist and false prophet.

5

DS,

I understood that people who have died are already in heaven, or hell, (or purgatory in some versions)? So that's unclear to me when taken together with Point 2.

That’s a good question and one that could take up a post of its own. I think there are two broad views on that issue. The first is that disembodied souls go to a “holding place” (purgatory, limbo, heaven, etc.) where they will await the resurrection.

The other is the idea that since our bodies exist in four-dimensions (3 of space and 1 of time) that the temporal state has no affect on us once we die. It would be similar to stepping into an alternate dimension of time in which you could enter at the same point (the resurrection) no matter where you entered (i.e., in 4000 BCE or 2004 CE).

6

Yeah I was thinking along the same lines Joe and I can't see anything wrong with that in prinicple.

From the perspective of the deceased there would no elapsed time between death and where ever you end up in either case. That would solve the possible conflict it seems to me.

7

To echo Denes, I think it is important to mention that there are premillennialists who are NOT dispensationalists. At risk of muddying your waters there, that distinction needs to be made if only to correct your point under premillennialism, because I am unaware of any dispensational premillennialist who is not a pretribulationist. It seems to me that the vast majority of dispies are pretribbers.

The alternative is "historical premillennialism." While dispy premil dates only back about a 100 years or so (to J.N. Darby, Scofield, et. al.), historical premillennialism dates back to the church fathers. Historical premils tend to be some form of posttribulational rapturists.

I only point this out because most hist. premils, myself included, gag when lumped in with Tim LaHaye, John Hagee, and other pretribber propagandists. Our "spokesmen" include actual scholars like George Eldon Ladd and Robert Gundry.

8

The key to understanding eschatology I believe is Matt 24. Jesus' points are:
1. Do not be alarmed. People will try to make all sorts of connections to politics and earthquakes and such BUT these are not signs of the end. Jesus has a "do not speculate" rule. This cuts to the chase of all the embarrassing speculative thinking people pontificate.
2. He says the sign will be like lightening. Meaning the end will be a big public event with no secret comings.
3. Jesus says that the end comes after a great trial etc.

Jesus' whole point is to keep us focused and not alarmed by anything. Suffering is common to the Christian and part of our calling. Americans tend to have a terrible understanding of the cross in our daily life. We think only of the cross the place of our forgiveness but suffering is part of our witness as well.

There is a link between our immature understanding of suffering and Christian living and our alarmist eschatology. All the political changes and effects these have on Chrisitan living are normal not signs of a new abnormal eschatological era. If we learn to see our daily life as one of 'witness in trial', we will tend toward being less alarmist when the church and christians and our way of life are under attack.

I encourage reading John Piper, www.desiringgod.org , on suffering and also his view of these theological issues.
brad

9

I'm guess I would be in the mid-trib huh?-millenialism. I think that Christians will be present for part of the the tribulation but not the whole thing. I'm not really that concerned with the millenium because I don't see a clear answer in scripture and it doesn't really concern me.

I'm sure I will be happy with however it turns out in the end. The tribulation does affect me and that is why I have studied up on it.

10

Jared,

You're right, I should have included the historical pre-mills from the start. I've added information on that position to the post.

11

Another point:
To help us understand the issue of heaven and hell as opposed to a resurrection and eternity on earth, you have to understand a bit about Greek vs Hebrew (biblical) worldviw. The greeks saw the body and the physical as the source of evil and a prison. Therefore, like all good pagans, they saw the eternal state as without a body. The bible teaches that, instead, God is redeeming the physical and renewing the earth. The Hebrews have a teleologivcal view of history meaning they say themselves as being part of a great plan to move history forward. The pagan view is that history is static. The hebrew or biblical view is that history is going somewhere. The Messianic view (i.e. the christian view) is that the change is not evolutionary but apocalyptic. To add to this the Christian worldview places two advents. One which is eschatological with respect to ones spiritual relationship with God and the moral life and the second which is eschatological with respect to the body and politics. The key is seeing the end state as including the physical and the totality of all God's creation being redeemed through Christ.
God Bless,
brad

12

Brad wrote, "The key is seeing the end state as including the physical and the totality of all God's creation being redeemed through Christ."

Great post, Brad. I think maybe I mistook your meaning here. The totality of all God's creation being redeemed through Christ would not include those who have outright rejected Christ in this world, would it? Or are you simply stating that the whole person is redeemed, body and soul, or body, soul, and spirit if you bend toward the trichotomous view?

13

Thanks, Joe.
This really is good stuff. I hate to only comment when I have a critique/nudge to give. That's being a very bad sport. You've got a great blog, and I read it every day. I feel out of my element in most threads, so I hope you won't take my occasional piping in as ornery.

14

Joe, I notice you don't mention Preterism. It might be interesting to hear your thoughts on it, particularly as it relates to the timing of the second coming.

15

As thorough as this discussion has been, I would appreciate more discussion among evangelicals about the characteristics of an antichrist.

People often seem to assume the antichrist will be a globetrotting charismatic liberal secularist -- a Kofi Annan of sorts.

But recall the atrocious human rights records of numerous evangelical political leaders: Rios Montt in 1970s Guatemala; folks like Tim LaHaye who supported 1980s Latin American death squads; and Pat Robertson with his African diamond mines.

It seems to me that a bloodthirsty Biblical antichrist could be masquerading as anyone -- even an evangelical. The antichrist might even think of himself as a sincere Christian.

Folks who abuse human rights, claim hubristically to speak for God, or acquire wealth from taxpayers and employees through loopholed forms of theft, in my opinion, drive far more people away from Christian faith (and Christian values of humility, simple lifestyle, modesty, nonviolence, and charity toward the poor) than any Bill Clinton or U.N. bureaucrat.

So, how do we know an antichrist when we see one?

16

Good point, gedi. My mistake. Yeah i meant the totality of the creation being redeemed (excluding the damned) for the sake of the elect. or after perging the world of the unrighteous etc. Yeah, I mean an evangelical perspective. I was just emphasizing a world view issue that includes a physical redemption as being Hebrew and biblical as opposed to a greek pagan, soul only, salvation.
brad

17

A couple of important clarifications:

1. While many Preterists do fall into the Amillennial camp (myself among them), most are Postmillennial.
2. Postmillennialism itself has seen a resurgence in recent years in association with the Reconstructionist movement.

For examples of both points, see David Bahnsen, Kenneth Gentry, Gary North, Marcellus Kik, R. C. Sproul Jr. (and Sr. to a lesser extent), Keith Mathison.

www.preteristarchive.com is a good resource for information on Preterism, but be alert - it includes a great deal of material on "Full Preterism" which may not be orthodox.

For an EXCELLENT and very readable introduction to Postmillennialism (particularly the contemporary variety), read Keith Mathison's "Postmillennialism: An Eschatology of Hope".

RobbL

18

Matthew B, preterism isn't a view on the millenium, so it doesn't belong here. It belongs in a contrast between different hermeneutical frameworks for interpreting prophecy, i.e. preterism, historicism, idealism, and futurism. Most people nowadays say that most or all of them are legitimate in different contexts and then emphasize one or two. Greg Beale's Revelation commentary emphasizes preterism and idealism more than the others, and Grant Osborne's emphasizes futurism and idealism more than the others. Those who emphasize preterism more tend to be postmillenialists, but that's not across the board. Beale is amill. D.A. Carson is historic premill, and he thinks all of these hermeneutical frameworks have some merit.

Joe, I'm surprised you're unaware of the large following postmillenialism has among Reformed evangelicals. In my experience, Reformed thinkers are generally about 50% amill and 50% postmill. Sproul himself is postmill. In their more moderate forms, those two views are almost the same anyway, with one or two important differences. In their more extreme forms (e.g. reconstructionist theonomy or those who idealize everything), you might find a more drastic contrast. It's probably also worth mentioning that Roman Catholicism officially endorses amillenialism alongside Luther and Calvin.

19

I should also say that most presuppositionalist apologists are postmill. I generally associate presuppositionalism and theonomy together, because almost everyone I know who holds to one holds to at least a weak form of the other, though there are clear exceptions since there's no real logical connection, just a historical one given that so many who hold one also hold the other.

20

I understood that people who have died are already in heaven, or hell, (or purgatory in some versions)? So that's unclear to me when taken together with Point 2.

Joe, I'm very surprised by your response to this. The 'place of the dead' is called hades throughout the bible, and described in some detail in Luke 16:19-31. We are also told that Hades will be destroyed in the end. Purgatory is a human invention, and Limbo I'm not so sure about, but I don't remember it appearing in scripture.

21

Of course, if you're just summarizing popular views, then no foul.

22

Jeremey: Joe, I'm surprised you're unaware of the large following postmillenialism has among Reformed evangelicals.

I do have to admit that I was rather unaware that postmill was popular outside theonomist circles. Down here in the South, almost every evangelical I know is a premillenialist of some type. After I was persuaded to join the amill camp I felt like I was some sort of heretic. ; )

Hoots Joe, I'm very surprised by your response to this. The 'place of the dead' is called hades throughout the bible, and described in some detail in Luke 16:19-31.

I had always assumed that story was allegorical (would they have water to cool tongues with in Hades?). But, to be honest, I’m not sure which view I would consider to me the most Biblical (though I certainly realize that Purgatory and Limbo are not the right answers. )

23

Just want to say that it's an excellent post and you even mentioned my alma mater! (Trinity Ev Div School)
The varying beliefs are confusing and anything that helps to clarify them is welcome.
-JDM

24

"The other is the idea that since our bodies exist in four-dimensions (3 of space and 1 of time) that the temporal state has no affect on us once we die. It would be similar to stepping into an alternate dimension of time in which you could enter at the same point (the resurrection) no matter where you entered (i.e., in 4000 BCE or 2004 CE)."

Wow - I've believed this as the most likely explanation for several years, but I've never met anyone who saw it that way. My husband and I have been chalking it up to "Too Much Star Trek". I'm glad to know it's not a crazy concept!!

Enjoying your blog in Brooklyn, N.Y.,
Liza

25

Amazing set of posts. What strikes me is the high level of discussion; I may save this set for the next person who tells me that evangelicals have one tooth and an even lower IQ. I learned a lot.

26

In discussing preterism, please also distinguish between partial preterists and full preterists. Full preterists believe the second coming has already taken place. Partial preterists believe that most of what is prophesied in Matthew 24 and Revelation took place in the days leading up to AD70. There are varying degrees - I for one am a pretty confirmed partial preterist when it comes to Matthew 24 but I've never been able to make the exegetical leap to being partial preterist when it comes to Revelation. That view depends on a pre-AD70 date of writing for Revelation and I'm not totally convinced. Either way, the partial preterists fall within the scope of biblical orthodoxy because they still look for a literal, bodily second coming of Jesus. The full preterists don't - we're now in the new heavens and new earth (boy is this is a disappointment!).
Also, there are a few of us who are amil partial preterists - about the only thing I have seen taking that position is Jay Adams book The Time is At Hand.
And, in reference to Jeremy's comment about presuppositionalists and theonomists I think that almost all theonomists are presuppositionalists but not vice versa. In my opinion Westminster seminary in Philadelphia is ground zero for presuppositionalism but those guys definitely aren't theonomists.

27

Joe, you're right, the subject of Hades and extra-biblical ideas of places for the dead probably deserves its own post, and I'd love to see it as an addition to this series.

As for the story being allegorical, I disagree. The use of proper names and historical personalities indicates that it is more than a parable, and we would have to ask the obvious: to what does the allegory point? And why use a description of something Jesus considered real and tangible as an abstraction? I don't see easy answers to these questions, indicating to me that the story was most likely meant as a revelation of the real dwelling place of the dead. It includes real time (identical to ours or not), real sensual perception by people with physical human bodies, and if fire can exist, why not water?

See also Matt 11:23, Rev 1:18, Rev 20:13-14

28

But Preterism is an eschatological position, and as such, is relevant in a discussion of the millenium. Preterists, especially full preterists, do tend to have views on the millenium which are distinct from those of other evangelicals, particularly dispensationalists. So I thought it might be relevant.

29

To DS and Joe:

"Purgatory" denotes an experience or process, not a place, per Catholic doctrine: a final purification at or after the moment of death.

It is only for the saved; so purgatory is not an alternate to heaven, but the mud-room to heaven.

The effect of purgation is to "purify" one of the EFFECTS ("temporal punishments") due to sin; it is NOT about forgiving the eternal consequences of sin; Christ's blood at Calvary does that, as we respond to his offer of salvation.

Hence purgatory "saves" no one; one must already have saving faith to even benefit from this final act of purification. Another way to understand it is that it PERFECTS us: healing concupiscence.

It is a Catholic doctrine; Orthodox believe in praying for the dead, and in purification after death, but they don't use the terminology or concepts associated with Catholic thinking on this.

Catholics and Evangelicals disagree on whether Scripture can, or even needs to be, adduced to "prove" this.

Much of the criticism of the doctrine of purgation seems to end up directed, not against what the Catholic Church actually teaches, but against how it is understood and explained: Catholics often speak of "time" in purgatory, even though strictly speaking, this is no more than analogous. It may be instantaneous.

(By the way, don't Evangelicals similarly use analogous language about heaven, about God, etc.? So I fail to see why Catholics' analogous language about purgatory is any big bugaboo; and yet it is: take the issue of time of out it, and what, exactly, is the problem with believing Christ's grace perfects and purifies someone of the EFFECTS of sin at the moment of death?)

Once we allow for this purgative experience to be instantaneous, I have a hard time seeing how it differs from the Evangelical doctrine of glorification, other than in name.

Some Christians, I'm guessing Evangelicals but that's more than I know, hold that there is no "intermediate state" between death and the resurrection: you die; and next thing you know, you're at the Last Judgment, for good or ill.

I think this is related to the idea of "soul sleep." Catholics and I am pretty sure Orthodox believe firmly in the intermediate state: souls await the resurrection; if saved, they await in heaven, or in its mudroom, purgatory; if damned, they await it in hell.

Septimus

30

I read a comment in one of Cahill's books (either "Why the Greek's Matter" or "Gifts of the Jews") that made the interesting point that in Jesus day it would have been unusual for a Jew to imagine that the soul and body were distinct. The idea of soul as separate from the body was a Greek concept. The idea of soul as separate from the body was however taken up by the Greek educated Paul in his writings. This made much of christianity more palatable for the Greek influenced meditteranean world in the first few centuries AD. This concept today however is largely taken as doctrine by most (with on notable exception being many scientists). I will also freely admit that I only read this a year or two ago and have not thought out the implication in any detail.

More to the point of the posts and comments, it would seem to me that the "distinction" made today of the "bodily ressurection" is only important if you *also* believe that the soul is independant of the body. If the soul and body are not distinct that could also help explain how you don't have any existance until the time of the ressurection (eliminating the need for Star-Trek and 3+1 dimensional space-time and what-not).

31

One other question comes to mind relating to some recent study in Genesis 2. After evil is eliminated, is there still free will and the "knowledge of good and evil"? Or have we somehow "uneaten" of the tree.

32

"After evil is eliminated, is there still free will and the "knowledge of good and evil"? Or have we somehow "uneaten" of the tree."

Mark: The consuming of the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil was not what brought evil into the world. Evil (namely, the perversion of something good -- as by the end of Gen. 1:1 God had declared pretty much everything in the world "good") was already present in Creation -- hence a tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Also, the fruit from that tree did not make Adam and Eve sinful; rather, it was their disobedience and lack of faith (read: trust) in God. Had they trusted that God knew best, they wouldn't have listened to the nachash (Heb., "shining one") in the garden and eaten of the fruit.

Obviously, God intended them to partake of the knowledge of good and evil some day, otherwise why make such a tree accessable?

It is MHO that free will and the "knowledge of good and evil" are not evil or sinful qualities to have; quite the opposite -- the angels who chose not to join Lucifer's rebellion possess (or at least, possessed) both without also possessing evil natures. I think that those two qualities are good things to have; what determines whether you are good or evil (w/regards to these two things) is how you use them.

ok, a bit of a ramble. apologies for those who can't read it. oh yeah, great topic, Joe.

33

Much of the criticism of the doctrine of purgation seems to end up directed, not against what the Catholic Church actually teaches, but against how it is understood and explained: Catholics often speak of "time" in purgatory, even though strictly speaking, this is no more than analogous. It may be instantaneous.

I think much of the criticism also dates back to the historic abuses that so angered Luther, Septimus. Johann Tetzel's couplet "When the coin in the coffer rings, the soul from purgatory springs," seemed to at the very least place indulgences alongside the blood of Christ in the work of salvation ... if not substituting for it. And it certainly adds an element of time, as well, else what's the advantage?

For most of us Protestants, that's really all we know about purgatory. I know that does not reflect current Catholic teaching, but since I'm not Catholic I don't really know what current teaching is. Thanks for your comment.

And Joe, thanks for your very informative post. I confess these distinctions tend not to stick in my brain very long, because I'm not sure I see the significance for how we're to live our lives. I guess I'm an Eh-Millenialist ... as in eh, who cares? But I know it matters greatly to many people, and now I know where I can find a concise explanation.

34

RC,
Ok. I'll quibble over one point.

When God declared creation "good" in Genesis 1, I think there is a distinction to be made between ethical "good" and "good" meaning well made or complete. Squirrels and plants (and creation as a whole) are not "good" or "evil" ethically, but "good" as in complete and well made. Before "tasting" of the fruit of the tree, I would imagine that we were kind of animal-like ourselves, having no sense of ethics (that is to say good and evil), sort of like Rousseau's mythical "Noble Savage".

Also, having eaten did Adam and Eve gain true (or absolute) knowledge of good and evil or merely an awareness (knowledge) that evil and good exist and their importance with respect to living. I would argue given a look at the world around us and Eve's statements after giving birth to her first child that the latter is more likely.

I still think that evil and free will are tied together. When evil doesn't exist anymore, can we do nothing but good (or will desire to do nothing but good). Where is choice? Or is choice only (naturally) restricted to those that are "good"?

Sorry, I'm just rambling/thinking out loud so to speak.

Oh, and I'll chime in with the rest, Joe *great* post!

35

Mark wrote, "I would imagine that we were kind of animal-like ourselves, having no sense of ethics (that is to say good and evil), sort of like Rousseau's mythical "Noble Savage"."

Given the fact that God had given Adam a command to obey, i.e. "do not eat of the tree..", good and evil as absolute concepts within their scope of knowledge had to exist. What is good except to obey the very will of God, which is in essence goodness itself? God's will declared not to eat, and thus Adam was aware of both good (God's will) and evil (opposite of God's will). The punishment was not knowledge of good and evil, but rather death (Genesis 2:17).

I would like to hear your view, Mark, on Eve's comments after giving birth to her firstborn, however. Maybe that will help me understand your point more fully.

36

RC wrote, "Had they trusted that God knew best, they wouldn't have listened to the nachash (Heb., "shining one") in the garden and eaten of the fruit."

RC, am I missing something, bro? I probably am.
nachash - serpent, snake. As in "and He said, "Cast it on the ground" So he cast it on the ground, and it became a serpent (nachash), and Moses ran from it." (Exodus 4:3)

37

Excellent and informative post, and I'm very impressed: some 35 responses on this thread, and all are generous, genteel, and polite in disagreement. (I also notice the absence of certain rabble-rousers, so I my congratulations may be premature).
Good work, Joe. You know Hugh has been mentioning you…

Joe & Liza: I arrived at the same temporal solution independently. Sure does solve some problems. Thank-you, Einstein.

38

Kent:

About indulgences. This is a much-misunderstood teaching of the Catholic Church; due, in large measure, to the Tetzel episode, and the wide publicity it got. It is little appreciated how revolutionary Luther was in mass-pamphleteering his message. At the time, it was revolutionary and it meant certain ideas got fixed in the imagination. This is one.

Anyway . . . it is little known that an indulgence is not about eternal salvation; that is to say, it presupposes it; it doesn't add to it in any way.

Rather, it's basically a prayer for the dead, or for oneself, to be purified in the afterlife. And the "promise"? That if we offer the prayer in true faith, it will work. (I.e., indulgences have no effect without faith.)

Another way to think about indulgences is as a penance -- and a penance being an act, in which we open ourselves to the grace of conversion -- and conversion is what it's all about. Do indulgences work? Yes; just as conversion works.

Now, of course, that's the actual theology, presented in my own way.

Then there is the abuse of it -- and that's what famous -- leading to the wretched Teztel (who, for all the mischief he caused, may be languishing in Purgatory to this day -- but I say more than I know of course) and Luther's understandable reaction, and the rest, as they say, is history. (By the way, I may be wrong, but -- I think the theses of Luther having to do with indulgences are a non-issue in Lutheran-Catholic dialogue.)

But I got carried away. Does the doctrine of indulgences and purgation detract from the efficacy and sufficiency of Christ's sacrifice?

In no way, because the power of an indulgence to hasten our conversion, and the agent of our purification and perfection once we have died, is solely the grace of Christ.

We Catholics believe that the Cross is how that grace poured into the world; but we also believe that grace is applied to different people, different needs, throughout time; and that is certainly no derogation of the power of the Cross -- on the contrary!

The Cross towers over all history, all creation; and all grace whatsoever comes by way of it. We really can't understand what's wrong with saying this grace is working on us, right up until we enter heaven -- and in fact, that grace is absolutely necessary to get us there. And if we want to name some of these works of grace, "purgatory," "indulgences" . . . so what?

I don't expect this to convince anyone to believe in these teachings; I only intend this to explain how we Catholics can believe them, and yet believe in the all-sufficiency of grace (which we certainly do).

Septimus

39

Septimus wrote, "(By the way, I may be wrong, but -- I think the theses of Luther having to do with indulgences are a non-issue in Lutheran-Catholic dialogue."

No you are right. They are wrapped into the bigger context of the definition of grace, imputed or infused.

Septimus, please don't take this in a diminuitive or derogatory manner. It is not meant as such. Are there Biblical proof texts or larger Biblical themes which speak of indulgences being efficacious for receiving grace? For those of us who are sola scriptura, this is kind of a big issue. Again, not meant to offend, simply understand. Church tradition would be a fine answer for me. :)

40

From Everett Fox Torah transation "The Five Books of Moses". This is a modern very literal translation of the Torah. This interpretation is born out (and to be honest is owed) to Leon Kass' interpretation of the same verses (he did his own translation in his book "Beginning of Wisdom"). Also be warned, Fox chooses not to translate but transliterates all the names hence you will get Kayin instead of Cain and Havva for Eve.

Genesis 4:1

"Now the human knew Havva his wife, she became pregnant and bore Kayin. She said: "Kaniti/I-have-gotten a man, as has YHWH!"

Taken literally she is so proud of giving birth she claims to have created a man just as did the Lord. Thus, she is somewhat overly proud of her accomplishment in giving birth to her firstborn son. It is to be noted that here announcement at her third son (Seth) is much more respectfull, which probably has something to do with Abel's fate. My comment was only that perhaps if the fruit she ate gave her a truer perspective on good/evil, she would have not have had such pride, which we are taught is a sin.

(Note: other translation I have read translate this verse as "with the Lord" or something like that. If these translations are used, this point is of course lost. Who or where *that* tradition started I don't know.)

41

gedi,

Oops. The above Genesis 4:1 post was a response to a question by gedi. Sorry.

42

gedi,
If by God giving us a command, "do not eat", we are already cognizant of good and evil. That is to say by following his instructions or not, then what are we to think of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil? Perhaps it is shame? Shame is pointed out three times, Gen 3:1, after eating Gen 3:7, and when God comes walking 3:10&11. Shame occurs directly and immediately after eating the fruit.

I'm going to have to think more on the relation between "the knowledge of good and evil" and shame before I continue to ramble on. But if you have any thoughts to share on this, please .... tell.

43

Gedi:

If you are asking if "indulgences" are mentioned, per se, in the Bible, then obviously no. But I give you credit for being smarter than that; so I assume you mean, the concept...

Is the concept of God's grace coming to us, as we respond in concrete ways to his commands -- as we pray, fast or give alms, for example -- yes, I suspect we could find that in the Scriptures.

For a more in depth answer to, "Where is it in Scripture," see "Catholic Answers" "Primer on Indulgences" (http://www.catholic.com/library/primer_on_indulgences.asp).

Septimus

44

Mark,

Thanks for your post. 4:1 is certainly open to vast interpretation as the English translations attest. So, the Hebrew says, "I have gotten a man, the LORD" "ish eth-YHWH". The Greek and Latin says, "I got a man through (or by means of, on account of) the LORD".

I think most English translations weigh heavily in favor of the Greek and/or Latin, for once.

I dunno where Fox gets the "as has" in "as has YHWH". The eth is the sign of the direct object, thus implying YHWH is the direct object of "gotten".

If the Hebrew is used, then the implication is that Eve sees the promised seed from 3:15 as being fulfilled in Cain's birth. Such a view would imply more piety on the part of Eve than your translation, as this time she would be trusting God's declaration in 3:15. In other words, having faith in God's promise is the motivation for her statement rather than pride. Certainly her reaction to Seth's birth is, as you stated, more respectful / humble. The interpretation I threw out is just that, another interpretation, but I think a compelling one. I appreciate your comments and interpretation as well. Good information to have! God bless you, Mark.

45

Septimus,

Much thanks for your linkage. The LORD bless you, Septimus!

46

Mark wrote, "If by God giving us a command, "do not eat", we are already cognizant of good and evil. That is to say by following his instructions or not, then what are we to think of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil? Perhaps it is shame? Shame is pointed out three times, Gen 3:1, after eating Gen 3:7, and when God comes walking 3:10&11. Shame occurs directly and immediately after eating the fruit."

The fruit is the means of determining Adam's faithfulness to God' will, i.e. good. Yep, shame is a biproduct of the sin. Some would say that the first sin was Eve's when she incorrectly reported to the serpent the instructions from God. In other words, she lied. She includes, "or touch it". I think this detracts from the eating, which was at that point God's only declarative will toward the couple.

We also cannot forget the presence of the serpent. Clearly evil as an absolute existed at this time. The only delta is whether Adam and Eve were cognizant of it. I would argue that they were from my previous post.

47

Thanks for the clarification, Septimus. Basically, my understanding of Catholic doctrine has come from the half-remembered lessons of my Lutheran catechism class and Catholics who had left the Church. That's not exactly a "fair and balanced" view.

It is difficult to get away from the notion of "time" when talking about purgatory, though, isn't it?
who, for all the mischief he caused, may be languishing in Purgatory to this day -- but I say more than I know of course

48

When I claimed to be a panmillenialist (it will all pan out in the end), some accused me of capitulating to a kind of post-modernist unwillingness to fight for the truth. It never helped my situation when I told them that it seemed to me that the biblical record reads like a very fat pencil sharpened at both ends. We are told much about the middle, but as we go back to the beginning or look forward to the end, it gets a little thin; and for me I am not ready to fight for beliefs that seemed to me thinly supported.

And that kind of talk wins few friends (some of whom see to think I am risking my status as among the redeemed, or even giving solid evidence that I am not among them).

49

Kent writes (quoting me, fyi!):

It is difficult to get away from the notion of "time" when talking about purgatory, though, isn't it?
'who, for all the mischief he caused, may be languishing in Purgatory to this day -- but I say more than I know of course...'"

Well, sure, I don't deny it. And, in case anyone was unclear, I was also making a joke about Tetzel, but I'll stand by my deliberate use of a temporal concept in relation to purgatory...

The point is, being temporal ourselves, we have a hard time describing, or thinking about, life after this, without reference to time.

And for all we know, there is something like time in the next life, and therefore, in heaven, in being perfected for heaven, or in hell.

Look at the Bible's images of heaven, in Revelation 4:8-10: "...and DAY AND NIGHT they never cease to sing, 'Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord God Almighty, who was, and is, and is to come!' And WHENEVER the living creatures give glory and honor and thanks to him who is seated on the throne...the 24 elders fall down before him..." (emphasis added).

I guess my point about time is that I don't see why it's a big issue either way. We just don't know either way, so including some analogous concept of time shouldn't be a big deal; but also, knowing we are talking about a reality outside of time AS WE KNOW IT, then it's reasonable to say that maybe there really ISN'T time involved -- it may be, AS WE UNDERSTAND it, "instantaneous."

I apologize if that's less clear than it might be. If it helps, C.S. Lewis talked about this idea a few times; the one place I think I can name was in "The Great Divorce."

Septimus

50

Joe could you please comment on this HEARSY!
http://ec.gayalliance.org/articles/000546.shtml

51

Excellent post and thread, Joe. Probably couldn't help it, but you missed my favorite 'millenialism', "pan".

I think it's a lot of fun to consider all these possibilities, but my strongest belief is that "It will all pan out in the end."

Cheers