What happens at death?

What is everyones understanding of what happens at death? to the believer and to the unbeliever.How does it tie in with the ressurection and future judgements.

Well... Jesus says in the story of Lazarus and the rich man that the rightous go to "Abrahams bosom" and the unrightous go to hell. I think many people just assume that we are judged and to go Heaven or hell. Then again, the bible also says "The dead in Christ shall rise first" and "The sea and hell gave up the dead which were in them". Basically, I'm not totally sure, and I don't look into it too much, since I don't believe it is a salvational issue :)

Hi Zapthycat, I agree that its not an issue upon which our salvation hangs, however i do believe we are here for so much more than just "being saved" we are here to be conformed to the image of Christ, and learning the ways of our God is one of the ways that that transformation happens. I don't mean to suggest that merely studying "dry doctrine" is what causes us to grow or that God is pleased with us just because we have all our doctrines straight. But I believe that God has set some of these things before us for us to search them out.The reason I started this thread is because for many years I had a very standard belief in the after life, christians die and go to heaven, enter into their reward and are reunited with saved loved ones. I believed the purpose of the ressurection was to merely give us a new body.In the last couple of years I have been realy examining the whole subject and suspect that there is alot more to the ressurection than I had previously thought. In 1 cor 15 paul places such a huge emphasis on the ressurection, the normal evangelical mindset (at least in my experience) has been that Christ died and rose again to ensure that you go to heaven when you die. However paul says that without the ressurection our hope is in vain, he seems to imply that without the ressurection our hope is limited to this life.Anyway, there are many scriptures to be examined, but my belief at this time is that if I were to die right now, my next conscious thought would be the ressurection. I don't believe that I would cease to exisit in the interm but that I would be "asleep" in Jesus. I am not a SDA or Jehovah's Witness by the way, nor am I dogmatic about this, as I said I have only been looking inot it over the last couple of years. But I think it would be usefull to discuss the subject for a bit here. I ove disccusing things like this with believers who are honest in their handling of the scriptures and are willing to admit as Philiologos says WKIP (we know in part).On a final note, whatever your beliefs are, the scripture speaks far more on ressurection than on going to heaven. How many sermons do you hear preached in gatherings today on ressurection? I met christians recently who had been walking with the Lord for 3 years and didn't even know that there was a ressurection! Yet Hebrews 6 lists it as one of the basics.Looking unto him, Stuart

Anyway, there are many scriptures to be examined, but my belief at this time is that if I were to die right now, my next conscious thought would be the ressurection. I don't believe that I would cease to exisit in the interm but that I would be "asleep" in Jesus. Are we talking about the biblical "asleep"...As in dead?Absent from the body present with the Lord.Going back to the Lazurus illustration, it appears to me that when we die, we are still fully conscious, able to converse and have recall of our memory.my next conscious thought would be the ressurectionLittle confused by what you mean here.Somewhat familiar with SDA teachings on this subject, which for the life of me I don't understand how they can extract "soul sleep" out of scriptures.Anyway, perhaps you or someone else could elaborate more and clarify some of these things.

Are we talking about the biblical "asleep"...As in dead?Yes but the scriptures don't speak simply of dead bodies being raised it speaks of the dead being raised. How can you refer to a person who is in conscious bliss as being dead? or even asleep? Sleep seems a strange metaphor for the concious enjoyment of the Lord's prescence in Heaven.In regards to Lazarus and the rich man, I am not going to build a doctrine on a parable, I believe that parables are generaly for the purpose of teaching one major truth and the truth pf this parable seems to me that those who had enjoyed the riches of God's covenant (the jews) would be excluded and as good as dead where as the beggars on the outside (the gentiles) would be gatherd into the promises of Abraham. Salvation isn't given to those who are literaly beggars simply on the merit that they missed out on the good things of this life nor is it refused to the rich for the opposite reason. to take that parable literaly would also mean you have to believe that the dead in "hell" have their tongues still in their mouths and they are crying out for a drink.The wicked will be judged after the ressurection and then cast into the lake of fire. If they are in torment now then they are suffering before they are judged and the question would need to be asked "why raise them again so that they can be judged again and then cast into the lake of fire?"As to where one can get the idea that the dead are not conscious you could consider these:psalm 115:17 The dead praise not the LORD, neither any that go down into silence.Ps 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: In Sheol who shall give thee thanks?Ps 88:10 Wilt thou show wonders to the dead? Shall they that are deceased arise and praise thee?Rev 20:5 But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished.(not that they lived somwhere else, the lived not)Ecc 9:5,6 For the living know that they die, and the dead know not anything, and there is no more to them a reward, for their remembrance hath been forgotten. Their love also, their hatred also, their envy also, hath already perished, and they have no more a portion to the age in all that hath been done under the sun. (Young's literal) People regularly dismiss Ecclesiastes as being the opinions of a depressed King but it is part of the Word of God. Yes it is written from a certain perspective but still true. I believe nothing less than the ressurection can reverse the situation described in the above verses.Death is the opposite of life, not life in another place, surely?Stuart

Thanks almondBranch,Good point's, some things to take into consideration and perhaps I jumped the gun there a bit (have a tendency to do that).But could you gives us an idea of what you think happens, elaborate more on what you mean by "asleep" in the Lord, what does that mean to you...What is going on between the time that we cease breathing, physical death, and while we are awaiting our ressurection bodies?

could you gives us an idea of what you think happens, elaborate more on what you mean by "asleep" in the Lord, what does that mean to you...What is going on between the time that we cease breathing, physical death, and while we are awaiting our ressurection bodies?Don't know! 8-) This is involves some conjecture on my part, but here goes:Man is made of dust (his body), when a spirit is breathed into that body by God he becomes a living soul (Obviuosly I am refering to the initial creation here). I believe that it is our soul that gives us consciousness and our spirt that gives us life but our spirit in and of itself is not conscious. When we die our bodies are buried in the ground and our spirit returns to God who gave it, since the soul came into being through the union of spirit and body it doesn't exist in the interim or at best is said to be in hades or sheol (the unseen, literaly).At the ressurection our spirits are breathed back into our bodies, which of course are long since decayed but these are now glorified bodies fashioned after the image of Christ's body hence we once again are conscious and alive but now in a glorifed body free from all the effects of sin and death, thank God. Thus it is truly a ressurection from the dead not just a resucitation of our bodies. It is literaly the dead being made alive.There is much that for me is to hard to grasp but I do believe tht God, being the creator of time, dwells outside time, although he has also enterd into time which he created. Could it be that there is no intermediate "time" between death and resurection, yes there is from our side but perhaps when one dies in 2003 for example and their spirit returns to God he merley sends that spirit forward to the moment of ressurection whenever that will be. Thats quite a speculation I know and I am by no means certain that that is the way it is, do enjoy looking at these things though. A year is the length of time that it takes for the earth to go around the sun, do we really believe that time in heaven is the same as time on earth surely its entirely differnt, one day one thousand years etc.We are very individualistic in our thining, and so perhaps it suits us to think of each believer entering into his/her reward seperatly. But the body of Christ is corporate so I believe it is God's wil for us to enter in together.1Thess 4:14-17 For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also that are fallen asleep in Jesus will God bring with him. For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we that are alive, that are left unto the coming of the Lord, shall in no wise precede them that are fallen asleep. For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first; then we that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be caught up in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.Stuart

HI JakeHow about this?Heb 9:27 "it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment".The Bible does not hold a single verse in support of reincarnation and this one verse from Hebrews kills it dead. Neither is it a solitary example as there are many statements that make reincarnation utterly incompatible with the Bible revelation.

Hi AllI think I can see a case for 'body' sleep but not 'soul' sleep.Strange things happen when eternity and time touch. The disciples saw Moses on the mount of transguration although we know he was dead and buried. How did he come to be in resurrection body before the general resurrection?Here's my hypothesis. Here on earth we are generally time-bound and things happen in a linear fashion. We get so used to yesterday, today, tomorrow that it is almost impossible for us to sustain the thought that it will not always be like that. When we 'sleep' (Christians never die) our loved ones, living in time, are conscious of our departure. However the moment we pass from time and arrive in eternity 'time' may behave very differently. We say 'he's gone'; but do they say 'he's arrived'? Or was he 'always there' in a timeless eternity?To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord, but the gospels seem to show that people just did not remain 'dead' 'in the presence of the Lord'. I recall the conversation between Martha and the Lord. Martha says 'I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day'. Martha, 'time-bound', can only think linear. Christ says "I am the resurrection.. whosoever liveth and believeth in me shall never die" The eternal 'I am' lives in the 'now'. Where Christ is, the resurrection is 'now' not 'in the last day'.If anyone understand this post I would be grateful if you would explain it to me! ;-)

2Co 5:10 For we must all be made manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ; that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether it be good or bad.The idea of reincarnation has no compatibility whatsoever with the biblical teachings of ressurection, regeneration or judgement. A man (or woman) must be born agin not pass through differnt incarnations progressing gradualy in each. The dead must be raised not arive at the finish line passing from one body to the next like a relay race and finaly they must stand judgment for the things done in the body not in many lifetimes.You will find people who have visons, dreams, aparitions etc that will prove any doctrine on the face of the planet but as those aprehended by God we must not go beyond that which is written nor take our stand on different peoples visions.Col 2:18-19 Let no man beguile you of your reward in a voluntary humility and worshipping of angels, intruding into those things which he hath not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind, And not holding the HeadIn love, Stuart

G K Chesterton once wrote:"When people cease to believe the Bible, the danger is not that they will believe nothing, but that they will believe anything"

To be absent from the body is to be present with the LordI hope that this doesn't seem like nitpicking but the scripture actualy reads:We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lordthe emphasis is slightly differnt.The realationship between time and eternity is very interesting as are some of the discoveries made about time in the last centuary, to know taht if someone were to travel at the speed of light time for them would be completly differnt than it is for us. We can't travel at the speed of light (yet!) but we do know that God dwells in light that no man approaches so to say as david and peter both did that time for God is differnt than for us is quite scientific. I don't know if anyone here has ever studied bible chronology but the writings of edward denny, arthur ware and frank paine are very interesting. they show how throughout the bible (and history in general) God has had different "clocks" running but when he needs to he just stops one and takes no account of the time that passes when the "clock" is stopped. Anyway I digress.stuart.

Yes there are crazy people out their with crazy visions that can lead people astrayActualy many of them are not crazy people atall but we do have an enemy whose schemes include leading people away from truth on the contrary the Holy Spirit desires to lead us into all truth.Jesus said to the Father "Your word is truth"Read the book "death of a guru" by Rabi Maharaj, a hindu who was set free by the Lord Jesus Christ from the tormenting demons that drive hinduism. He was a very sane man who had many mystical experiences but none of them led him to peace with God. The same devil that drives hinduism in the east promotes many of the same doctrines in a "christian" form in the west.If reincarnation were true I am sure that passing from one incarnation to another would have some bearing on the ay of salvation. Yet the bible which you say was writtten to siply show us the way of salvation mentions nothing of this idea. Think about it.Stuart

First let me say thank you Stuart for bringing up this thought provoking topic and sharing your views with us. I have one question so far that has come to mind as I pondered your ideas. How does the following passage fit into your views on death?Luke 23:42-43 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.In Christ,Ron

I have one question so far that has come to mind as I pondered your ideas. How does the following passage fit into your views on death?I was wondering when that one would be brought up!Well there are two possibilities (that fit with the views that I put forth)1) translate the verse as Rotherham does, verily I say unto thee thee this day: with me shalt thou be in paradise.2)Back to the time thing again. What does the word day signify? its a rotation of the earth on its axis which takes 24 hours. What relavence has that to paradise if taken literaly? does that mean in paradise on friday evening? I don't mean that flippantly I am just trying to provoke thought. If the thief went (in God's timing) straight from death on the cross into his glorified body at the ressurection then it ould be considerd "this day"It could also be asked how people fit the quote from Luke 23 along with the scriptures which speak of His soul being in Hades and His spirit being commited into the Father's hands.un-dogmaticaly, stuart.

) translate the verse as Rotherham does, verily I say unto thee thee this day: with me shalt thou be in paradise.This seems a poor rendering and few scholars support it. It just doesn't make sense for the Lord Jesus to signify the time when He said this and not when the thief would be with Him in paradise. I think this rendering is invented to support a conclusion.Back to the time thing again. What does the word day signify? its a rotation of the earth on its axis which takes 24 hours. What relavence has that to paradise if taken literaly? does that mean in paradise on friday evening? I don't mean that flippantly I am just trying to provoke thought. If the thief went (in God's timing) straight from death on the cross into his glorified body at the ressurection then it ould be considerd "this day"It seems to me the Lord Jesus would be speaking to this man in terms he could understand. It seems clear (to me anyway) that He is telling the thief that not even a moment would go by that they would be apart, but that together they would go to paradise. That before the day was over they would both be there. It's interesting to note that He knew they would both die that day, often death by crucifiction took several days. But Jesus assured him that "that" day his prayer would be answered.In Christ,Ron

Our conversations on this thread had mentioned the different perspectives of time and eternity and of the odd things that happen when eternity touches time in the scriptures.I saw some snippets of a StarTrek, Next Generation, episode on UK TV the other day. It featured Picard, Guinan, Mark Twain and complicated time travel. I missed most of the plot but apparently Picard had gone back in time to have his first meeting with Guinan who he had just left on the enterprise. Are you following so far? :-D Picard is about to return to his own time in the 24th century and to leave behind the original Guinan in the 19th. I don't think I would have taken much more notice if we hadn't had this discussion here in the forum but the farewell scene goes something like this. Picard, about to return to the 24th century, speaks to Guinan who is staying in the 19th Century. Picard knows he will meet the other Guinan shortly on the Enterprise. The dialogue went something like this.Guinan "I'll see you in about 500 years"Picard "I'll see you in about 5 minutes"Of course, its just a silly piece of SciFi but just occasionally you hear something that makes you think.

Of course, its just a silly piece of SciFi but just occasionally you hear something that makes you think.Do you remember "the lion the witch and the wardrobe"? after years in narnia no time had passed in England. Again fiction, but its not so far fetched as we may first assume, its known now that at very high speeds time passes more slowly than it does at our speed, hard to fathom isn't it?Once again I'll say that one of the things I wish to highlight is the prominence given to ressurection in the New Testament, which of course can't be seperated from the One who is the Ressurection. our journey out of death begins long before the event known as the ressurection. But yet I do believe there is an event called the ressurection of the dead and I do believe it is more than just the ressurection of the dead bodies.By the way, Ron, I have just listened to your talk on repentance from Rora 2003, it was excellent, thanks. You mentioned that up 50% of the what evangelicals say is tradition passed on from generation to generation and from preacher to preacher (I am paraphrasing a bit). I quite agree, and even when we are quoting scripture directly it can still be difficult because we read our tradition into the verse we are quoting but never think about it because "it's scriptural" For example when we read "to the church in Corinth" what do we think? probably conjours up different images and ideas to different people depending on where you are coming from. Anyway, i digress...Stuart.

its known now that at very high speeds time passes more slowly than it does at our speed, hard to fathom isn't it?On the lighter side, did you hear of the man who thought that the theory of relativity implied that time actually goes more slowly when you are with your relatives! :-D

This is largely children remembering things from previous lives in other cultures and then proving that the remembered details are accurate. Kids could not just make these stories up.Jake, I have a three questions for you:1. How long have demons been on the earth?2. How far have they travelled?3. Can a demon enter a man / boy?

Hi Philologos, I saw that episode as well (I am a bit of a 'trekie') and you reminded me of an answer that an elder at my church (Brian Evans) gave to the question "who made God?", he replied "how can someone who has been around for eternity have been created?" :-o

I mean like the two thousand Jesus cast out of the demon-possessed man into the swine.

Whatever 'people' thought in the days of Jesus doesn't matter, what matters is that Jesus told the demons to "go" and they did.Jesus corrected people's wrong beliefs such as when they asked him:"Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?"to which He answered:"Neither this man nor his parents sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in him."

In the days of Jesus people believed that diseases like epilepsy were caused by demons. The example you cite should be seen in this historical light. Jesus cured the man of epilepsy or a similar neurological diseaseWhat then are we to make of the demons who were cast out of a man and went into a herd of swine?

Demons still cause epilepsy and the like today. Satan allows man to think he's so technilogically advanced with his "chemical imbalances" and the like. I was speaking with Jason the other night and he brought up a really great point...If you were Satan and one of your greatest achievements was to make mankind think you didn't exist, wouldn't you back off the demons when medicine was administered? Nothing has changed between Christ's time and our time. And as a psychology major, I tell you this includes psychological disorders as well. (Physical injuries don't count...broken bones aren't demon-caused, lol.)Going back to the very very original question, I say it doesn't matter. The only thing that matters is that we are judged, whether there is a waiting period or not, and those of us who are known by Christ reside with Him in heaven, forever praising and glorifying Him. There's a rather large house, lots of amazing food, and other brothers and sisters. It'll be a grand old time, and I can't wait. :)

Hi JakeI thought I should pass a comment about why we are not connecting. Reading the postings on this thread is like listening to one of those modern plays where the actors talk past each other without connection.The reason is that we have diametrically opposed views as to the weight of the testimony of scripture. Most of the posters on this site believe the Old and New Testament scriptures to be the final arbiter in our discussions; that's why this forum is called 'scriptural debates'. Usually we are debating and discussing different perspectives on truth but we all have the common foundation that if there is a definitive scriptural statement, that settles it.Your perspective is different. You are using scriptures to find occasional points of reference to your preheld positions. It is perfectly possible to do this but the scriptures are not a spiritual version of the Supermarket where you can browse along the shelves and take or reject as you choose. This book is God's revelation to men and woman of things beyond their intuition and discovery. God's truth can only be known by revelation.It is not anti-reason, but we are moving in different directions. You are reasoning in order to believe, we believe and therefore we reason. We do not recognise our intellect as the final arbiter in spiritual matters. This is not a closed circle for people of a particular disposition. All can come to Christ. The research scientist, the doctor, the academic, but they must all come as sinners to a Saviour and not as the curious to a puzzle.

Jake:In light of the fact that you and others hold rather different presuppositions, it would be best not to dwell on the present question on reincarnation. It might be more helpful to start new forum(s) discussing fundamental issues such as the inspiration, authority, and inerrancy of the Bible and the role of the Holy Spirit.For instance, I differ from you on various points:1) I see the biblical picture of what happens after death, i.e. resurrection, to be contradictory to the concept of reincarnation (and please note: coming from a Chinese culture, I know very well the notion of reincarnation, and in my opinion, it simply does not fit God's revelation in the Bible.) 2) I believe in the need for the work and power of the Holy Spirit. However, I see the role of the Holy Spirit as making relevant what is in the Scriptures, rather than providing extrabiblical revelation on crucial doctrines such as reincarnation, which go well beyond the written Word of God. Otherwise, it is easy to fall into the trap of subjectivism.3) I believe reason is important, however, I take a position similar to Augustine's -- "faith seeking understanding." Faith always come first. Otherwise, we will fall into the error of the rationalists, that is, the liberal theologians.4) The so-called "contradictions" that you have cited have been explained in various ways (which also depends on what position you hold on inerrancy). In principle, I believe in the historicity of the four gospels, however, I also believe that each was written with the author's unique theological purpose. The point is to see Christ in light of different dimensions; picking on nitty-gritty details often lead us astray.5) Both the scriptural revelation and my own experiences point to the existence of demons. It is not right to attribute everything that we do not understand to Satan and the demons, however, that does not warrant the complete ruling out of the possibility of demonic activities.From the above, it is quite clear that there are many presuppositions that we disagree with each other. Each point could potentially become a new topic in the forum.

The way I see it, demons may cause symptoms that resemble epilepsy; they are not the direct cause of the actual disease.The descriptions in Mark 9 of the boy possessed by demon with symptoms of epilepsy also show that there are other supernatural phenomena. According to the father's description, the evil spirit "has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him". This is not typical of epilepsy.To cite the IVP New Testament Commentary on Matthew 17:A man brings his son to the One with power to deliver him. Some of the symptoms depicted here resemble those of epilepsy (for example, Alexander 1980:83), which may imply that demons gaining control over the human central nervous system can sometimes cause epileptic-type phenomena. This observation does not, however, mean that epilepsy is always caused by demons; both the differentiation of the two in 4:24 and the numbers of committed Christians who suffer from epilepsy invite us to distinguish the two. Some contemporary accounts of spirit possession tell of spirits seeking to make people burn themselves (Kaplan and Johnson 1964:211).

Ah Friend,But dost thou have the seed in thee, else why doth the life that is in thee strike at the life that is in me?Augustine once said 'Love God and please yourself', and if a man loved God as Augustine did the counsel is good. When someone knows the scriptures as well as George Fox it is safe to listen to the inward witness.George Fox and Robert Barclay knew and taught that a true manifestation of the inward witness could never contradict the scriptures.

Jake:Personally, I have a high regard for George Fox and the Quakers especially in the area of experiencing God's leading. Richard Foster (also a Quaker) is an author whom I have great respect.I also agree that "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life" (2 Cor. 3:6). Merely a mental understanding of the Bible does not nurture our spiritual life. We need the empowering Spirit to enable us to see the implications and the relevance of the biblical truth in our own specific circumstances, and to help us submit to the authority of the Word. (This is what some theologians call illumination.)I also believe the Holy Spirit may give specific guidance to individuals, however, this guidance does not contradict the clear doctrines and moral teachings of the Bible.All of the above, I think, is more or less consistent with what you have quoted. That is to say, I have no problem accepting that quote.However, I think the authority and canonicity of the scriptures imply that this illumination of the Holy Spirit must not contradict the written word of God (and as Philologos pointed out, this is the position taught by George Fox).Finally, there are many philosophical implications of reincarnation that need to be considered and resolved. If all of us were reincarnated from a former life, and since the population of the world had been increasing, then where did all the extra souls come from? What about Cain and Abel and Seth -- who were they in their former reincarnation?By the way, the Old Souls book by Thomas Shroder seems more like a travel journal to me, and the people he interviewed all live in cultures that believed in reincarnation (where biases might be introduced). It will take a lot more than a book like this for me to accept anything as "compelling scientific evidence."I am also curious: a) Why is reincarnation so important to you? What's the significance of believing in reincarnation?b) Moreover, if the basis of your belief in reincarnation comes from a book (which belongs to the "new age" section of a bookstore), how do you come to the conclusion that this is a revelation of the Holy Spirit?c) How do you discern the difference between the subjective views of an individual and the "present revelations" of the Holy Spirit?

hi jakeIt does explain alot to me though; about how people born before Jesus can come to salvation, how people born in foreign cultures where He is not known can come to salvation, etc. So are you implying that only unsaved people are reincarnated? What would happen to someone who was saved the first time, then reincarnated but not saved the second time...?

hi jakeBarclay and Fox taught that Scriptures should be interpreted and informed by the "Light Within" and that if there was a contradiction, the present revelations of the Holy Spirit should supercede or modify Scripture.They taught no such thing."..these divine inward revelations, which we make absolutely necessary for the building up of the true faith, neither do nor can contradict the outward testimony of the scripture, or right and sound reason" Robert Barclay's Second PropositionLest you thought I was mocking the Friends, I ought to add to that I revere the testimony of George Fox very highly, regarding their experience of Christ to be of the highest order ever seen in these islands. These forum deal with many aspects of revival, these men lived it.

But nothing about reincarnation affects my belief in Christ. It does explain alot to me though; about how people born before Jesus can come to salvation, how people born in foreign cultures where He is not known can come to salvation, etc.Jake, please help us better understand your views on reincarnation. You have said that those born before Jesus can come to salvation through reincarnation. Are you're saying the soul is entirely reincarnated, just in a new body? Everything that was that person, knowledge, language, temperment, whatever, is still there, only in a new body? Can you clarify for us exactly what it is that you believe is reincarnated? In Christ,Ron

Reincarnation?!?Those who were born before Jesus are still saved by faith. Moses, Noah, Elijah...they have not been reincarnated in any way shape or form. They are saved by faith, and faith alone.Christ died for all, and that wasn't just from His time onward. He made it possible for *all* to be saved, including those before His time.Remember, God is outside time.

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, And bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."20Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? 21For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. 22For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; 23but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, 24but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Jake:Thank you for your feedback. It helps me to understand better where you are coming from. I respectfully disagree with you in many points, however, it certainly is easier to dialogue this way when we are aware of each other's presuppositions.My main point concerning Old Souls was not to dismiss the book because I believe the author is New Age, my point is that it is written in the genre of a travel journal/documentary, which certainly had a limited scope and was limited to cultures that already believed in reincarnation. On this basis, I could only accept what Thomas Shroder wrote as a possibility (among many others), not as hard, solid scientific proof (as in the law of gravity). So I am arguing from reason that may be we should not be too hasty in accepting his conclusions.Second, I still want to push for clarification of the philosophical implications of your understanding of reincarnation. I understand how it might explain some issues (such as how salvation comes to those who were before Christ), it also leads to many philosophical and theological questions. (I have also pointed some out earlier, which were not answered).For instance, do you presuppose that all souls exist before their appearance on earth? Otherwise, how do you account for the souls of the increasing population on earth? Does everyone have a former life? Without a clear view of this, reincarnation remains a vague concept. Moreover, who decides who gets to reincarnation into what? (Do I turn into a dog in my next life if I am a bad person in this life, as the Hindus believed?) So while reincarnation might seem to explain a lot to you, it also opens another can of worms!Finally, a question of authentication: do you firmly believe that the concept of reincarnation is a revelation from the Holy Spirit to you (as you seem to have implied)? How do you prove the authenticity of this revelation? If three people "felt in their bones" that they have received a revelation from the Spirit, yet they are mutually exclusive, what are we to do?I enjoyed the interaction and I hope you did too.

jake wrote: ALmond Branch and Nasher apparently are telling us that these children must have been posessed by demons in order to be able to do this. SO, I guess you have come up with a fool proof way of avoiding a true examination of the issue, just explain anything that doesn't fit into your world view by laying it on "demons." End of arguement! Well, I didn't actualy atribute their testimony to demons at all. I merely reponded to a statement you had made explaining your view of the stories of demons in the NT. If you look back at the posts my reponse to the testimony of the children supporting reincarnation was to show why i believe it is unscriptural, you had said that reincarnation does not contradict the bibles teachings in any way, I simply wished to point out that it did. If yo said you believed in it regardless of what the scriptures say, i would have left it at that, but you semed at first to give credence to the bible as an authority.I have no idea what happened to the children, there are many stories all over the world of many differnt things with very sensible people giving evidence for them, near death experiences, apparitions, so on and so forth. many of these contradict each other. Eventualy if you have a firm belief in anything you will have to reject somones testimony along the way.You have dismissed the notion of demons in doing so you have dismissed the testimony of many living people who claimed to have encountered them, as well as the testimoney recorded in scripture, you are entitled to do that.I believe the bible to be inspired by God.Stuart.

Jake:Thanks for replying. I think bringing the scriptural interpretations concerning homosexual practices and creation into this discussion will only make things messier given our divergent views on the authority of the Bible. It probably will not help clarify our present discussion.Apart from scriptural interpretation, I believe the questions I have raised earlier still need to be answered, especially from someone who claims that "beliefs do need to be held up to the scrutiny of reason" (direct quote from a previous post from you):1) How does reincarnation account for all the souls of an ever-increasing population of the world? Is this worldview logically consistent and coherent?2) If a person can have multiple identities (since his soul came from preceding lives), does this not obliterate human personhood? This problem is especially acute if you also believe in resurrection (do you?), when you consider the question: who am I really upon resurrection? Does it include all my previous reincarnations? Are they all the same person or are they each unique? How can God judge the soul in this identity confusion?3) Did you come to this conviction (re: reincarnation) because you find the arguments of Shroder rationally convincing (i.e. based on reason)? Or were you convinced that what you have is indeed the "continuing revelation" of the Holy Spirit? How do you substantiate this claim?I realise that my present post is essentially the same as my previous one. Perhaps I did not communicate too well. I suppose what I'm getting at is this: to find out how consistent and coherent your worldview is by asking questions that arise from its implications.

A Brief History of ReincarnationThe present popular Western concepts of reincarnation are actually refinements of the ancient theory of transmigration. This theory states that all human “souls” are involved in a cyclic series of rebirths in which the soul is eventually purged of evil by suffering, administered through the Law of Karma. In the Indian Vedas, the word “Karma” originally meant “a sacrifice” or “a ritual act.” In the Upanishads it evolved into the concept that any act in this life will have an effect on one’s next life. Finally, in the Bhagavad Gita, Karma is viewed as a punishment in this life for evils done in the past life, with a prospect of purification for future lives.According to the Law of Karma, one’s soul can be reborn into an insect, animal, or human body. For example, a gluttonous man could be reborn into a pig’s body as punishment. The Law of Karma is the immutable law that a person pays for evil he does in this life by suffering for it in the next life. If he is reborn as a worm or as a blind girl, this is his Karma. No one can pay his Karmic depth for him. All the suffering he experiences in this life is his own fault. The Law of Karma will always catch up with him. There is no escape. A person’s soul, according to this doctrine, is eternal and is part of the “world soul” or “ultimate being” (sometimes called “God”). A person emanates out of this “cosmic energy” and passes through multiple cycles of births until he is finally absorbed back into unconscious reality. One is “fallen” now because he is under the illusion of self-consciousness (I-am) and of subject-object relationships to the world (I-Thou and I-it). Through cyclic rebirths he will return to an impersonal nonconscious fusion with “ultimate reality.” In other words, the person was nothing, is now in trouble because he thinks he is something, but will return to being nothing through Karmic, cyclic rebirth. The theory of transmigration was disseminated into the Western world in the form of Orphic mysticism. Many Western pre-Socratic, and later Greek philosophers, held to Karmic transmigration in one form or the other. It became a firm Western as well as Eastern philosophic tenet. With Eastern and Western philosophers embracing the theory of Karmic transmigration, it is remarkable that Judaism held to its revealed dogmas. Its doctrines of God, creation, sin, man, death, and salvation were contrary to the popular Eastern and Western philosophies. It is no wonder, therefore, that Judaism expended its main energy on survival and thus did not significantly influence the philosophic world. In the world in which Christianity arose, most of the first-century Greek mystery religions, such as Gnosticism, held to various theories of Karmic transmigration. Christianity eventually displaced Karmic transmigration with its doctrine of Christ’s substitutionary atonement. He suffered and died for our sins.In the late 1800s, secularism, liberalism, and humanism began to displace Christianity through a rationalistic denial of supernaturalism. As Christianity was stripped of the miraculous and the supernatural, a spiritual vacuum was created in the hearts of many people. A revival of the occult religions, such as spiritism, thus ensued. Because secularization had stripped Christianity of its supernatural character, people began to return to the old forms of paganism. Occult practices and theories grew because they satisfied the desire for the miraculous and the supernatural. Thus, witchcraft, astrology and spiritism began to gain acceptance. The early part of the 20th century also witnessed a growth of occult groups which espoused reincarnation. At present, many secularized “Christians” are gradually moving into the world of the occult. Since liberalism and neo-orthodoxy have fostered the secularization of Christianity in the mainline Protestant denominations, more nominal Christians will be drawn into the occult. Liberal theology creates the vacuum which the occult fills. The theory of Karmic transmigration has been modified to suit the Western Christian mentality. Since a “Christian’ would not accept rebirth into a bug or animal, the concept was redefined so that rebirth always took place in a human body. This westernized form of transmigration was first expounded by occult groups such as Theosophy, and later by many of the Indian Hindu gurus who came to the United States. It was eventually adopted by such psychics as Jeane Dixon and Edgar Cayce. Cayce, sometimes called “the sleeping prophet” because “he gave his medical readings and prophecies while in a sleep-like trance, has done much to popularize this Western view of reincarnation. Cayce claimed to be a “Christian” who believed in reincarnation; but occult practices blended hand-in-glove with his reincarnation beliefs. He also accepted the basic metaphysical beliefs which formed the philosophic basis of reincarnation. Thus he was “Christian” in name but Hindu in belief. The Western version of transmigration is, therefore, a “hybrid” of distinctly opposite religious philosophies, borrowing just enough of Christian doctrine to make it palatable to western minds. Because transmigrational thought infiltrated our society so gradually, few have noted what an inconsistent mixture it really is. From:Reincarnation and ChristianityRobert A. MoreyMore books on the two incompatible world views:Reincarnation vs. Resurrection by John SnyderReincarnation, A Christian appraisal by Mark Albrecht

Moreover, I don't see how my belief in reincarnation is incompatible with Christianity.Hi JakeI don't want to disturb the flow but just a comment on the above. To be a Christian is to be personally submitted to the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In that sense it is not primarily a belief system or a moral code; it is a relationship.However, Christ said that our relationship with Him was conditional: "Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you". His commands which are communicated to us by His Spirit can only be consistent with what the Spirit has already inspired i.e. the Scriptures. This was the position of George Fox, Robert Barclay etc.,In fact Christ's prayer in John 17 only encompassed two kinds of people "Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word". He prayed for His immediate disciples and those who would come to faith through their testimony. He promised that the Spirit would come to bring to their remembrance things that they had heard from Christ, and to lead them into truth.The NT Scriptures are the fulfillment of this promise and Christians are those who have believed through the Spirit inspired testimony of those original disciples. This does not cancel the need for the Spirit's enlightening, but the Spirit cannot inspire contradictory 'truth'. This again was Barclay's position.One such scripture is the simple Spirit-inspired statement of Hebrews 9:27 "it is appointed unto man once to die and after this the judgement". This statement is incompatible with reincarnation and hence you will need to choose between your own personal intuition or to Christ's word in the Spirit-inspired scriptures. The choice is yours but if you choose your own enlightenment in opposition to that of the Scripture you ought not to name yourself a 'Christian'.

Jake wrote;The difference in our positions on interpreting the Bible is that you do not allow for the continuing revelations of the Holy Spirit.A faith that rests less and less on the Bible and more on church pronouncements, revelation, and human reason, is a faith that is built on sandy soil. Revelation and human reason have their place but are not to be on equal footing with the Word.Jake wrote; do not strike at the life in thee, but at the strict interpretation and exclusive reliance on Scripture evident in so many of the posts on this website.Wow, in my mind that is one of the best testimonies concerning the members of this site that could be given! I'm feeling more at home. :-D In Christ,Ron

Given that Jesus denigrated the priests and scribes who prayed in front of others to be seen and his admonition to 'go to your room, close the door and not let anyone but God hear your prayers', by what authority do you practice public prayer? (and you cannot cite the Lords Prayer here, because it was a response to a question 'how should we pray?' and was an instrution, and not a prayer itself.)Again, scripture is our authority. Jesus said don't pray to be seen by men, so christians should not pray in order to be seen and praised. He said go to your room, so I go to my room and pray in secret. The Disciples prayed together (Acts 1:14, Acts 4) (I don't believe a group of believers seeking the Lord together constitutes public prayer) so I pray with other disciples. People may have differnt views than me, but if claiming to be christian, we will begin our discussion on the premise that the scriptures are our authority, Jesus said they cannot be broken. No one is forced to believe his words but one who whishes to be named his disciple surely will believe them.Given Jesus instructions on swearing oaths, by what authority or rationale to the vast majority of Christians swear oaths?I don't, and if I met a christian that did I would remind them of our Lord's words. Again, if he is a christian he will heed them.What justification is there for a Christian to fight in a war given Jesus testimony that those who lose their lives for His sake will receive their just rewards?That is a matter which many christians debate. I would tend to agree with you on that one.Lastly, didn't Jesus tell the apostles that Isaiah had come in the form of John the Baptist? (I can't cite the verse right now, need to look it up.)John 1:21 21 And they asked him, What then? Art thou Elijah? And he saith, I am not. Art thou the prophet? And he answered, No.Luke 1:17 And he shall go before him in the spirit and power of Elias, to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children, and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just; to make ready a people prepared for the Lord.Mt 17:11-13 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things. But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.Comparing scripture with scripture, John was not Elijah, John was elijah but in the middle we have "he came in the spirit and power of elijah".I believe the middle statment harmonises the other two comletly.Stuart.

Hi Jake,Your questions concerning the basis of public prayer, oath-swearing, and war are all big questions that deserve to be discussed elsewhere in the forum. Moreover, these questions do not directly relate to the topic of reincarnation (although the larger issue of authority of Scripture is one of the key differences in our own presuppositions). Suggestion: perhaps you can start another thread in the forum for these subjects.The last question deserves some consideration as it is relevant to our discussion. The actual verses you had in mind are in Matthew 17:11-13. Jesus said, "Elijah is coming and will restore all things; but I say to you that Elijah already came..." Then the disciples understood that He had spoken to them about John the Baptist. I think the angel's pronouncement to Zechariah concerning John the Baptist clearly indicates that this has nothing to do with reincarnation: "he will go on before the Lord, in the spirit and power of Elijah..." Identifying John the Baptist's ministry with the spirit and power of Elijah is not the same as saying John the Baptist is a reincarnation of Elijah.Your answer to my first question implied that you have gone further than the adapted Western notion of reincarnation by proponents who claimed to be "Christians" (their views limit reincarnation to humans, as explained in the article cited by lwpray). I am not sure why their Holy Spirit taught them a view that contradicts to what your Holy Spirit taught you.Furthermore, you still have to answer an extended form of my original question: (1) Given that there are more and more life forms on earth due to reproduction, how do you account for all the "souls" of all life forms in the present world?My next objection concerns the concept of "karmic transmigration", which is implied by your own statement, "every time people ignore what is Good and support what is Evil there are consequences they have to live with," and he will "have to carry this weight into their next life and deal with it."Karmic transmigration is based on the concept of works. Your good works today will lead to a "better" life in the next. There is no need for salvation, all you need to do is try better. To combine this concept with Christ's salvation by the grace of God will require some rather creative speculation. (2) In what way is karmic transmigration compatible with the salvation of Christ? Finally, my position regarding Shroder is clear. I find his book interesting but not convincing. As for your claim that your knowledge also comes from the "continuing revelation" of the Holy Spirit, given that you do not accept the Bible as the objective revelation of God, there is no basis by which your experience can be evaluated. However, I think you do understand that such absolute subjectivism has some serious, inherent dangers. I enjoyed the dialogue and I hope you did too.

Given Jesus instructions on swearing oaths, by what authority or rationale to the vast majority of Christians swear oaths?Hi JakeIn the UK we have the option in our courts 'not to swear, but to affirm'. This right was gained in part by 16 year old Friends who often spent their birthdays in jail for refusing to swear allegiance to the king.The option is increasing taken by atheists and Christians (interesting union). Instead of saying 'I swear by Almighty God' you just say 'I affirm'. I have done it myself on occasion for the reasons you quoted.

Hi JakeWhatever your conclusions about John the Baptist you picked an interesting case. Elijah was one of only two people in the history of our race who never actually died!2 Kings 2:11 And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, and parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.BTW Elijah was seen as Elijah after the death of John Baptist. It was this experience which caused the disciples to ask about Elijah's future activity. In your scenario this would mean that Elijah came back as John but when John died Elijah reverted to being Elijah again. Confusing, isn't it? ;-)

Picking a world veiw is not like window shopping, something little for the hungry mind to fit the empty pocket. It is certainly not like shoplifting – you cannot get away with it in this game. There are not many options in the end. The impersonal + time + chance does not take us anywhere. Personality is lost in such a setting. We become reduced to the level of machines. This is where we find ourselves if we opt for any of the many spiritistic solutions also. We are said to evolve into something that never talk to us. God never talk in person in these systems We are said to stand under the harsh rule of Karma, which we never come to grips with. It judges us without revealing its rule. It is a system that cannot do away with evil.God is silent in these systems. An incredibly pessimistic position. If there is anyone out there speaking, one find a mediator without any of the qualities which can be found in Jesus Christ, God, the Son who became man, for the sake of a true testimony about Heavenly issues.These evolved mediators are always silent to true truth, simply because they do not adhere to it. Lip-service may be paid to Jesus, but regarding the work of the Cross – silence or abhorrence. These mediators go together with a corrective text which always is put on top of the Bible, if this Good Book is brought into the system at all. This interpreting factor is never validated. It must be taken for granted, accepted without solid testimony.This is where we stand when we allow spiritistic influences to handle facts and longings concerning life after death.God, the Father is certainly not silent in this realm.

JakeChrist offers a way out of this cycle and a path to progress, by loving your neighbor as yourself. In the final analysis there are just two systems of faith. One, which has many variants, says 'something in my hand I bring'. It can be expounded as 'I will pay my own way', 'I am responsible for my own salvation' or in your version 'I will do better next time'.The other system says 'nothing in my hand I bringsimply to Thy cross I cling'

This is a cop out. You are saying that a sinner need not try to change or mend his ways but can keep on sinning knowing that all he needs for salvation is to claim Christ on his death bed. JakeYou are confusing Justification with Sanctification. We are accepted with God on the basis of what Christ has done. Those who knowlingly put their trust in anything else are 'frustrating the grace of God'. Such total trust results in justification. It is summed up beautfully in these words:Upon a life I did not live,Upon a death I did not die,Another's life, Another's death,I stake my whole eternity.Once the salvation is 'in' I can 'work it out'; that is Sanctification.Without the new beginning in Christ, all our righteousnesses are of no more value than 'bloody rags'. (Isaiah 64:6)

Jesus gave us a practical as well as spiritual way of living. You can't have one without the other.JakeSorry, I think have lost the thread of your argument. I can't see where the dichotomy has come from. The demarcation is not between 'practical' and 'spiritual',but between a deserved 'salvation' and a free gift. There is a statement in Romans which always causes offence to people of your persuasion. It goes like so: Rom 4:5 But to him that worketh not, but believeth on him that justifieth the ungodly, his faith is reckoned for righteousness. Acceptance with God comes before we have any merit of our own(while we are still ungodly); it comes solely through the worth of Christ's merit and the effects of His death in satisfying the righteous demands of God. In your scenario, successive reincarnations are being substituted for Christ's death. If we accept your thesis we have to say what was the point of Christ's death? Acceptance with God is either a gift or our just deserts; it can't possibly be both.Your earlier posting was almost a rephrasing of Paul's question in Rom 6:1 What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? Paul knew that his line of argument would provoke the kind of question that you asked. His answer is a protest and a counterquestion. Rom 6:2 By no means. How can we who died to sin continue to live in it any longer Those who receive God's free gift of salvation are also able to receive the free gift of His Spirit. The life they live will then please God, but it will be a consequence of salvation not its necessary condition.

Hi Jake,Let's not deal with the issues with oath-swearing, fighting in wars, and public prayers for now (after all, many Christians hold different positions on them) and concentrate on the concept of reincarnation here.I readily acknowledge that we have different views on the authority of scripture, however, please note that I have never tried to impose my own view on you.My primary interest here is not in persuading you to agree with me. I was simply hoping to understand where you are coming from, and then make some inquiries into questions that naturally arise from your position. I believe mutual understanding is crucial.My difficulties thus far are as follow:a. The concept of reincarnation seems to be completely foreign to scriptural thought. Moreover, it seems to be at odds with the biblical doctrines of final judgment and resurrection.b. The cited evidences in Shroder's book present some possibilities but they do not struck me as rationally convincing.c. Proponents of reincarnation do not seem to be able to account for the origin of the "souls". That is, if all life forms are reincarnated, they must have a former life. Since the number of life forms is increasing through reproduction, then where do these additional "souls" come from?d. Among proponents of reincarnation among self-proclaimed Christians, there are conflicting views as to how reincarnation fits into the Christian picture. If they all claim to have received a "revelation" from the Spirit, who should I believe in? (I think it is easier to accept either the Christian worldview or the reincarnational worldview, rather than both, because it is so difficult to reconcile them)I am interested in knowing how you deal with the above, especially (c) and (d). Thanks.

ALso I want to comment on Philologos's statement that: "In your scenario, successive reincarnations are being substituted for Christ's death." I neither said nor implied any such thing. That we inherit the good or bad effects from our previous lives has nothing to do with the salvation that comes from Christ.JakeI'm sorry if I misunderstood you, but what is "the salvation that comes from Christ" if it doesn't separate us from our sin and the consequence of it? If He carried it in His own body how can it pursue me into a 'next' life?I think my point is still valid that salvation is either an achievement or a gift but cannot be both. If it is a gift, what can I add? If it is an achievement, what was the point of Christ's death?