|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 30, 2011 17:39:51 GMT -8
Good conversation, guys. Keep it up! (Keeping my nose out of it until I feel better...)
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Aug 30, 2011 19:04:41 GMT -8
Good conversation, guys. Keep it up! (Keeping my nose out of it until I feel better...) you sick? |
|
|
|
Post by stevekimes on Aug 31, 2011 8:20:16 GMT -8
Kind of. Not processing well until I get my medicine, which I am 3 weeks late for.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Aug 31, 2011 19:10:59 GMT -8
Sorry to hear you're sick Steve  I'm just getting over the crud myself. Getting back to what Lewis said on this matter. Although he now knows more about this than any of us, I have a few disagreements with his sentiments while he was still in the land of the living. He wrote: I agree with Lewis on one hand that men ought to love and obey God apart from the prospect of an afterlife. But the problem with this argument is that if that was God's plan, He really missed the mark (it would seem) and the plan was of little or no effect. Men did not receive "centuries" of collective spiritual training and certainly didn't learn to desire and adore God. The OT is clear that each generation "did what was right in their own eyes". But there was always a "remnant" that did love and obey God. And it's the same today even after Millennia of so-called "spiritual training". I don't think much has changed. Most people become Christians for no other reason than fear or hope of an afterlife. It's only by their personal maturity that most people come to love God for who He is and not just what they get from Him. Also, as previously discussed, I disagree with the original premise that God didn't reveal anything of an afterlife to the Israelites. I believe OT saints stood with God, risked and sometimes sacrificed their very lives, because they were "assured" (as the author of Hebrews says) of something more. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 1, 2011 20:57:13 GMT -8
I agree with Lewis on one hand that men ought to love and obey God apart from the prospect of an afterlife. But the problem with this argument is that if that was God's plan, He really missed the mark (it would seem) and the plan was of little or no effect. Men did not receive "centuries" of collective spiritual training and certainly didn't learn to desire and adore God. The OT is clear that each generation "did what was right in their own eyes". But there was always a "remnant" that did love and obey God. And it's the same today even after Millennia of so-called "spiritual training". I don't think much has changed. Most people become Christians for no other reason than fear or hope of an afterlife. It's only by their personal maturity that most people come to love God for who He is and not just what they get from Him. I had the same thought when reading that. However, the idea of God "teaching humanity" in some monolithic way over hundreds of years does resonate with Paul's view of the Law: Galatians 3 24 Therefore the law was our tutor to bring us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.One could bring up objections to this sentiment very similar to your own: Was the "tutorship" of the law really a successful project since most people didn't learn it's lessons and in fact many people in the church seem to be stuck in a 'law' phase? Perhaps the answer to this is to see both statements as referring to "the elect"/ the "remnant"? |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 1, 2011 22:08:53 GMT -8
I don't necessarily see Paul saying that the law was teaching "humanity" over hundreds of years, I see that passage being kind of parallel to this one: Rom 7:7-127 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! On the contrary, I would not have known sin except through the law. For I would not have known covetousness unless the law had said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, taking opportunity by the commandment, produced in me all manner of evil desire. For apart from the law sin was dead. 9 I was alive once without the law, but when the commandment came, sin revived and I died. 10 And the commandment, which was to bring life, I found to bring death. 11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it killed me. 12 Therefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy and just and good. NKJV
Paul isn't saying that humanity learned the lesson, but that he learned the lesson from the law himself. Each one of us has to learn that lesson personally through experience. I don't think knowing history is enough for it to sink in. And it's because of that the Lewis' assertion makes no sense to me. |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 2, 2011 8:24:19 GMT -8
This is turning into another topic altogether, but an interesting one  Many other passages come to mind from the Old Testament (like Hosea 11 or Jeremiah 3 for instance), where God speaks to Israel as having gone through childhood, adolescence, and then adulthood. Again, one could level the charge that that doesn't really make sense because at any given time, there many have been "infantile" Jews and "reckless" Jews and "mature" Jews. But I think God is making a generalization of an overarching trend. Let me ask you a related question: Is there anything you think God didn't reveal to humanity at some stage because they just weren't ready for the information? Also, don't you think that the church itself could be said to have gone through an infancy, adolesence, and maturing process of sorts?* *the metaphor, again, only works in certain aspects. Obviously the example of the early christians in the face of suffering was anything but infantile, for instance. But, Paul himself speaks of the church as a whole "growing up" (Ephesians 4:15) |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 22, 2011 20:20:46 GMT -8
Despite most of the Psalms seeming agnosticism or downright pessimism about what comes after death, and despite the fact that many passages which might seem to be about eternal life actually aren't, there are some passages that remain which I acknowledge do seem to genuinely hope for a life beyond death with God.
One I've been ruminating on this week is that peculiar verse in Psalm 116.
15 Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.
If, as elsewhere stated in the Psalms, the dead can no longer praise God, why would God consider the death of his saints precious? I get the sense that the psalmist is tapping into better revelations to come.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 22, 2011 20:21:30 GMT -8
Oh, and Chris, I'm still waiting for your response to my above question, when you have the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 24, 2011 21:29:37 GMT -8
Almost missed this. I didn't realize I still owed a response. But I'll go back and see what I missed when I get some time. Or you could just restate the question.  |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 25, 2011 18:40:20 GMT -8
I'm assuming you're waiting to answers to these questions?
You mean like how to make WMD, countless tons of toxic waste, clone human beings and the like? ;D
But seriously, I don't know how we would know if that's the case or not if God didn't reveal it explicitly. Jesus did tell the disciples they weren't ready for certain stuff, but I don't think that's the same thing we're talking about. But the obvious question I would have to ask is what information do you think one generation is ready for that the previous ones were not? Isn't that what CS Lewis would call "chronological snobbery"?
Yes, I do believe that. How are you applying that to this conversation? Does that have to mean that the nature of death and the afterlife is one of the things the church is supposed to learn about? Explain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 25, 2011 19:53:33 GMT -8
well, I meant direct revelation, but...  I don't really understand this sentence? That's different because he was talking about a process of realization within one lifetime, whereas here we're taking about if in any sense God treats mankind as going through stages of understand. Obviously not, because Lewis is the one who posits that God might purposefully have been obscure with his people about the afterlife at first. What Lewis calls "chronological snobbery" is a case in which we automatically assume we must know more or know better just because we're "modern". |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 25, 2011 20:03:08 GMT -8
I just thought of a passage that illustrates the point better:
Galatians 4:4-5
4 But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, 5 to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons.
One could argue that ANY time would have been fine for Jesus to come, considering everyone has always been in need of Him. However, there was something "right" about the specific time in which Jesus sent His Son, and it had to do with the timing of God's self-revelation to mankind. Presumably, had it been done earlier it would not have been understood enough or appreciated enough?
On another note, more closely aligned with the origianl topic, I think Psalm 49 (which we read in depth today) is indeed a great example of a Psalm in which the afterlife is seen positively. I'd go to bat that it's not merely speaking about being delivered from death, but rather, through death.
Psalm 49:7-15
7 No man can redeem the life of another or give to God a ransom for him-- 8 the ransom for a life is costly, no payment is ever enough-- 9 that he should live on forever and not see decay. 10 For all can see that wise men die; the foolish and the senseless alike perish and leave their wealth to others. 11 Their tombs will remain their houses forever, their dwellings for endless generations, though they had named lands after themselves. 12 But man, despite his riches, does not endure; he is like the beasts that perish. 13 This is the fate of those who trust in themselves, and of their followers, who approve their sayings. "Selah" 14 Like sheep they are destined for the grave, and death will feed on them. The upright will rule over them in the morning; their forms will decay in the grave, far from their princely mansions. 15 But God will redeem my life from the grave; he will surely take me to himself. "Selah"
The context is clearly "the decay of death"- how those who trust in themselves will die and decay BUT the righteous will have a different fate.
Interesting, this is not a Psalm of David. Perhaps it's a clearer picture of the afterlife because it was written later?
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 25, 2011 20:09:23 GMT -8
I don't really understand this sentence? You actually answered what I meant in the next sentence.... ...If God is purposely teaching humanity certain things over time (because it's not ready for certain information), I'm asking how we would know that without Him directly revealing it in scripture. OK, but exactly how are we more "ready" for the afterlife information than the ancients? Wouldn't you say that it might have been advantageous for them to know also? Was God in essence sacrificing them on the alter (by withholding some pretty vital information) for our sake? |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Sept 25, 2011 20:18:56 GMT -8
Lewis's point (take it or leave it) was that it was best for God to not emphasize the afterlife so that the Israelites would learn to serve Him for the best reasons (His love) rather than the worst (fire-insurance). Once God's people got that habit in place, then they would be ready for more to be answered.
You're right that there have always been unfaithful followers of God and always the remnant of the faithful, but maybe the solution is that those who would be faithful to God have always built on what God has revealed before as a foundation.
Hebrews 11:40
What is the better thing that we have that the OT saints didn't? More revelation, I think.
|
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 25, 2011 20:32:03 GMT -8
One could argue that ANY time would have been fine for Jesus to come, considering everyone has always been in need of Him. However, there was something "right" about the specific time in which Jesus sent His Son, and it had to do with the timing of God's self-revelation to mankind. Presumably, had it been done earlier it would not have been understood enough or appreciated enough? Sure, one could argue that. One could also argue that God was waiting for Israel to fill up the measure of God's wrath on them as he did with the Canaanites (Gen 15:16) so that Jesus could then save the whole world through their disobedience (Matt 23, Romans 11). How do we know it was written later? I've never been clear on who the "sons of Korah" referred to in the Psalms. It seems like that could go back all the way to the time of the Exodus, when Korah was swallowed up because of his rebellion, but his sons were not. Maybe you can shed some light on who these master poets were, because I'm not sure. |
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Sept 25, 2011 20:44:09 GMT -8
Based on logic alone, I can't follow Lewis on this. But I won't hold it against you if you want to. It's a good question. But I think it has to be more than merely "more revelation" because we have so much more than just revelation. We have a new covenant that is based not in on-going sacrifices, but on Christ's once and for all sacrifice. So we get to enter God's "rest" where the OT saints could not. We also have the benefit of the Holy Spirit indwelling us, where they did not. They only had promises. So I think it's a whole lot more than just revelation the author is talking about. |
|
I'm just getting over the crud myself.
