8/25/14

From Jim McGuiggan... Where is heaven?

Where is heaven?

 Where is "heaven"? It’s hard to talk about "heaven" without giving the impression you believe it is some "place". Some of us tend to think that if you got into a rocket ship and went in the right direction long enough that you’d get there; though I suppose we settle for that only because we don’t know what else to think. Others of us who are pretty sure that it isn’t an address in this material universe are a bit more sophisticated and think that we sort of step out of some "door" into a parallel universe. I suppose there might be something to that as long as it isn’t the same kind of universe as this one; that is, another material universe where God is supposed to be located.

Wherever heaven is, it’s where God is. But it’s that word "is" that generates our difficulties. God certainly "is" in the sense that he "exists" and that requires us to think he "is" somewhere. I mean, he cannot "be" nowhere, can he? If there is absolutely nowhere that God is then he is nowhere—he doesn’t exist. But if he exists "somewhere" then he takes up some space, doesn’t he? Or does he? [All this shows that we can't speak of God without placing him "somewhere" and "somewhere" is a spatial term so that won't work when speaking of God.]

It isn’t possible for us to exist in this world without taking up space; that’s the nature of humanity. Each of us takes up space, which implies that there must be space to take up. We as "physical" beings exist in a "physical" universe. If there were no physical universe then we physical beings would have no place to "be".

But God can and does exist as "spirit" (John 4:24, whatever that means exactly). The scriptures suggest that to be "a" spirit is to be without flesh and bones (Luke 24:39). God can and does exist as "spirit" (not "a" spirit) without needing a physical environment in which to exist because he is not a physical being.

I’m now sure it would be better to think of spirit as a kind of being that implies a way of existing rather than as a "substance" that needs "space" in which to exist. God then "exists" in a way completely different from us, in a "spaceless" mode. So that we should be thinking not of a "place" at all but a mode of being. We’re accustomed to calling this world or earth a "place" and since it is not "nowhere" then it certainly is a place. We say of humans that they are "earthly," that is, of the earth, they belong to the earth, they exist on earth. Maybe when the Bible speaks of God dwelling in heaven it is telling us (at least expressing the truth as best it can) that God is "unearthly," that he is heavenly and is not bound to physical space, that he is a different order of being. Maybe it isn’t telling us where he is but what he is to distinguish him from us.

The one thing we can be sure of is this: Heaven, the "place" where God "resides", is not a part of the physical creation. It's all right to point skyward and speak of "heaven" as long as we don't mean that space and outer-space is heaven. To point skyward enables us to say that heaven is "beyond our world". Our world not just a "place" where we exist—it's a setting that determines the kind of existence that is ours.

All this is a bit too much for all of us but we’re not to forget that we have difficulties conceptualizing many things—it isn’t just issues about God that are difficult. "Where" are memories? is a difficult question to phrase much less answer. It's clear that the brain is connected with their existence but what are they "made of" and where do they lie. You can poke an area of the brain and generate a memory but what exactly does that mean? Oh well. Some things are true and real without our being able to explain them at present.

So, "where is heaven?" is probably the wrong way to put the question though we're stuck with it due to our limitations. "What does it mean that there is 'heaven'?" may be a more fruitful line to follow.

©2004 Jim McGuiggan. All materials are free to be copied and used as long as money is not being made.

Many thanks to brother Ed Healy, for allowing me to post from his website, theabidingword.com.

The Problematic Concept of a Sinful Human Nature by Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=11&article=3749

The Problematic Concept of a Sinful Human Nature

by  Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

It is fashionable in some religious circles to teach that human nature is sinful, i.e., we all have a “sinful nature.” If this is supposed to mean merely that all accountable persons at some point sin, and need forgiveness, then the doctrine of a sinful nature is biblical (Romans 3:23; 1 John 1:8-10). However, the very words “sinful nature,” and much of the discussion surrounding it, often denote the doctrine of hereditary depravity. This is the idea that all humans inherit the sin of Adam in some way—we suffer due to this original sin, and therefore we all are inescapably sinful by nature. The biblical evidence militates against this idea, as we have shown previously (see Pinedo, 2009; Colley, 2004; Butt, 2004). The very concept of a sinful human nature is also philosophically problematic. Indeed, the concept of a sinful nature is plagued with difficulties even before the Bible is consulted.

Consider a preliminary remark concerning what it means to speak of a sinful human nature. To speak of human “nature” at all is to refer to qualities that are essential to all humans. Such characteristics cannot be accidental, or things that might become characteristic of a human as he develops, but might also not. Rather, aspects of human nature are inseparable from whatever it is that makes us human (with the possible exceptions of young children and the mentally ill). For example, we might admit that human nature is essentially rational (this is part of what differentiates us from animals), but not essentially football-loving, because there are plenty of humans who seem not (however mysteriously!) to appreciate football. Someone who thinks that we become sinful when we transgress God’s law does not believe in the essentially sinful human nature.

To ascribe a sinful nature to humanity, therefore, is to say that there is something sinful about being a human being. What part of our being might be accused of inherent sinfulness? If we think that a human being consists of a body and a soul, there are three possibilities: (1) The body could introduce guilt; (2) The soul could introduce guilt; (3) The union of body and soul could itself produce guilt.

First, someone could allege that sin comes as a result of our embodiment. Indeed, the idea that the body unavoidably mars the perfection of the soul has been popular at times. For example, the Gnostics taught that matter is intrinsically evil and is the source of all evil (see Renwick, 1982, 2:490). How may moral blame attach to human nature as it arises from our bodies? We are typically unprepared to blame purely material objects such as tables and chairs. Genes and brain matter are different from tables and chairs, but it is nonsensical to look for a difference that would give rise to moral guilt. As yet, there is no good explanation to convince us that evil arises simply from matter. (Yet, we might use our bodies to do wrong. Indeed, all sins are committed while we are “in the body” [2 Corinthians 5:10]).

On the other hand, someone who believes in sinful human nature might be (and probably is) referring to the status of the soul rather than the body. Before assessing the possibility of the essential blameworthiness of the human soul, consider that for someone to think of the soul as essentially sinful, there are some concepts of soul which he must reject. For example, the Aristotelian view of the soul as being the animating force of the body, or that which activates the body’s potential, does not allow for the human to “start out” as blameworthy. Guilt, on this view, cannot arise from outside of the human order, because Aristotle does not posit a supernatural being to ascribe the guilt. Furthermore, humans could not possibly claim to know that a newborn baby was already guilty if they did not think that God had ascribed guilt to the baby from outside the human order.

Likewise, the Stoic idea of a Universe-Soul is problematic for the idea of an essentially sinful soul. If we all share in the same soul, which also gives life to everything else in the Universe, then to ascribe guilt to that soul would be to say that everything is altogether evil. If everything is evil, how would we know what good is? And what is the point of discussing sinful human nature if we think there is no rescue from it?

There are other conceptions of soul that would a priori disallow a sinful nature. If we presuppose, however, that the soul is distinct from the body (i.e., it is its own, separable substance) and comes to the body from elsewhere (from heaven or wherever), then we have at least a format that might allow for the essential guilt of the soul. In this format, we are free to suppose that the soul acquires guilt prior to entering the body, at which time human nature is indeed guilty. There are two problems with this, however: (1) We could not know about such an arrangement unless it were revealed to us. Plato’s theory of reincarnation is beautiful and interesting, but like other theories of reincarnation, is not readily amenable to proof (Socrates’ “proofs” in the Meno [Plato, 1997, pp. 870-897] and the Phaedo [pp. 49-100] are notoriously problematic). A person has just as much reason to deny the existence of souls prior to their embodiment as he does to assert such existence, because the spiritual realm does not appear to us. (2) Most people who want to establish sinful human nature presumably would not be interested in the guilt of a soul prior to embodiment, because sin is supposed to be passed along from one embodied soul to another embodied soul. If we suppose that a new soul acquires guilt while it waits in heaven to be born into the world, we would need an additional story about where this guilt comes from. Such a story does not seem to be forthcoming. Because reincarnation is not evident (and seldom proposed by supporters of the sinful human nature), then there is no obvious way to ascribe the sin of a previous human to a soul not yet embodied.

The only remaining option is that the soul becomes sinful at the time when it is embodied, at the occasion of the union of soul and body. If the soul is innocent prior to embodiment—and as we have seen, there is no obvious reason to think it guilty—then the body is the substance that is responsible for the guilt in the union. We have already shown the difficulty of associating blame with matter. Furthermore, recall that the common view of sinful nature is that we have inherited the sins of an ancestor. His soul was guilty, not because of contact with matter, but because of his own sinful volition. This was the “original” sin. Guilt was introduced on this occasion, but did not exist prior. This ancestor did not inherit guilt, so matter, at least in his case, did not bring sin. Why should we think matter brings sin in our case?

CONCLUSION


One response in favor of sinful nature might be that it is a spiritual, theological matter, and thus a philosopher will not find it if he searches for it (e.g., Hodge, 2010). This is an appeal to the limits of philosophy, and would be a well-taken point if God had revealed a logically coherent doctrine of original sin that was not obvious apart from revelation. However, He has not done this. In fact, He has revealed information to the opposite effect. Glory be to God, Who does not blame us for the sins of our ancestors (Ezekiel 18:20).

REFERENCES


Butt, Kyle (2004), “Do Children Inherit the Sins of Their Parents?,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2543.

Colley, (2004), “Did David Authorize Infant Baptism?,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2626.

Hodge, Bodie, “Is Original Sin (Sin Nature) Passed through the Father’s Genetic Line?,” http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010/02/23/satan-the-fall-good-evil-how-is-original-sin-passed.

Pinedo, Moisés (2009), “Are Children Born With Sin?,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/240109.

Plato, Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett).

Renwick, A. M. (1982), “Gnosticism,” The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, ed. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

From Mark Copeland... Be Transformed (Romans 12:1-2)

                      "THE EPISTLE TO THE ROMANS"

                        Be Transformed (12:1-2)

INTRODUCTION

1. In Ro 12:1-2, Paul makes the following plea regarding transforming
   our lives:

   "I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that
   you present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to
   God, [which is] your reasonable service. And do not be conformed
   to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind,
   that you may prove what [is] that good and acceptable and perfect
   will of God."

2. As we consider this text, several questions come to mind...
   a. What does it mean to be transformed?
   b. What is the goal of transformation?
   c. What should motivate us to undergo transformation?
   d. What does one do in order to experience transformation?

[Starting with the first question ("What does it mean to be
transformed?"), let's consider . . . ]

I. THE DEFINITION OF TRANSFORMATION

   A. THE WORD... 
      1. The Greek word is metamorphoo (met-am-or-fo'-o)
         a. Lit., "to change into another form" (Vine's)
         b. From which comes the word "metamorphosis"
         c. Used to describe a change of form (e.g., when a caterpillar
            becomes a butterfly)
      2. In the NT, this word is used to describe:
         a. What happened to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration - Mt 17:1-2
         b. What is to happen to Christians in their service to God - Ro 12:1-2

   B. THE CONCEPT...
      1. The idea being commanded by Paul is this:
         a. Christians are "to undergo a complete change, which under
            the power of God, will find expression in character and
            conduct"  (Vine's)
         b. I.e., we who are "caterpillars" are to become "butterflies"
      2. Note that Paul uses the passive voice
         a. Indicating that "transformation" is something we allow to be
            done to us
         b. Not something we do by our own power alone
         c. Rather, we submit to God's power and by His grace...
            1) We are "changed into another form"
            2) We become a "new creation" - cf. 2Co 5:17

[But this leads us to our second question ("What is the goal of
transformation?")...]

II. THE GOAL OF TRANSFORMATION

   A. TO BECOME LIKE CHRIST...
      1. As expressed by Paul - 2Co 3:18
      2. As predestined by God - Ro 8:29
      3. The purpose of being a disciple (to become like his teacher)
         - Lk 6:40
      4. The goal of Christian living - cf. Col 3:9-10

   B. TO LIVE LIKE CHRIST...
      1. To present our bodies as living sacrifices, holy, acceptable to
         God
         a. Is this not what Jesus did on earth? - cf. He 10:5
         b. So we are to offer ourselves as living sacrifices - Ro 12:1
      2. To prove that God's will is good, acceptable, and perfect
         a. Was this not Jesus sought to do on earth? - cf. Jn 6:38
         b. So we are to demonstrate that God's will is right - Ro 12:2

[Such is the goal of being transformed; indeed, it is the goal of being
a Christian!  Yet why do many never experience the transformation God
offers?  Why do they remain "caterpillars"?  Perhaps they lack the
proper motivation...]

III. THE MOTIVATION FOR TRANSFORMATION

   A. THE MERCIES OF GOD...
      1. In our text, Paul appealed to transformation based on God's
         mercies - Ro 12:1
      2. What mercies of God had Paul discussed earlier in his epistle?
         a. Freedom from sin - Ro 6:16-18
         b. Gift of eternal life - Ro 6:23
         c. Peace with God - Ro 5:1
         d. Access to the grace of God - Ro 5:2
         e. Saved from the wrath of God - Ro 5:9
      -- Should not God's mercy move us to repent and seek
         transformation? - cf. Ro 2:4-5

   B. THE LOVE OF CHRIST...
      1. Elsewhere, Paul revealed the motivating power of the love of
         Christ - 2Co 5:14-15
      2. Such love compelled him to live for Jesus - cf. Ga 2:20
      -- Does not the love of Christ move us to live FOR Him and LIKE
         Him?

   C. THE ONLY ALTERNATIVE...
      1. The alternative to being transformed is being conformed to this
         world - Ro 12:1
         a. The word conformed (suschematizo, soos-khay-mat-id'-zo) as
            used here implies that which is "transitory, changeable,
            unstable" (Vine's)
         b. I.e., at the most we can only be an imitation, a cheap copy
      2. If not transformed, we will either be conformed to...
         a. The world
            1) Act like the world, be like those in the world
            2) In which we will bring shame to the name of Christ
         b. Other Christians
            1) Outwardly we may act like Christians, appear like them
            2) But it will be just a cheap "copy", which eventually
               reveals its true nature!
         -- Is that what we want? To bring shame to the name of Christ?
            To be "plastic" Christians, or to be the real thing?

[Why not let the mercies of God and the love of Christ motivate us to
seek transformation?  The process is not as difficult as one might
think...]

IV. THE PROCESS OF TRANSFORMATION

   A. IN THE BEGINNING...
      1. Remember, transformation is a passive process ("be
         transformed") - Ro 12:2
         a. We cannot change ourselves by our own strength or
            meritorious works
         b. As Paul vividly illustrated his dilemma prior to his
            conversion - Ro 7:14-24
         -- We must submit to God's working on us!
      2. It begins when we are baptized into Christ!
         a. For there we experience the working of God - Col 2:11-13
            1) Spiritually circumcised as our sins are removed
            2) Buried then raised with Christ
            3) Made alive with Christ, forgiven of all trespasses
         b. For there we experience the renewal of the Spirit - Tit 3:5
            1) Saved by the mercy of God
            2) Involving a washing of regeneration and renewal of the
               Holy Spirit
         c. For there we rise to walk in newness of life - Ro 6:3-8
            1) Having been buried with Christ by baptism into His death
            2) Having been crucified with Christ that we might be free
               from sin
            3) Having been raised to live with Christ
         -- When joined with faith and repentance, baptism becomes the
            starting point in which true transformation can take place!
            - cf. Mk 16:16; Ac 2:38

   B. RENEWING THE MIND...
      1. The process of transformation continues as we renew the mind
         a. As indicated in our text - Ro 12:2; cf. also Ep 4:20-24
         b. Unless there is a renewing of the mind, any change in our
            lives will be superficial
      2. Renewing the mind is made possible by where we set our minds
         a. Setting our minds on things above - Col 3:1-2
         b. Setting our minds on the things of the Spirit - Ro 8:5
         c. I.e., feeding our minds with the Word of God, prayer,
            fellowship, etc. - Ac 2:42
      3. With our minds "renewed" we can experience a true
         transformation!
         a. By putting off the old man and putting on the new man - cf.
            Col 3:2,5-10
         b. By living according to the Spirit - cf. Ro 8:5,13
      4. The process of transformation is really quite simple
         a. Set your minds on things above in order to renew your mind;
            for example...
            1) Meditate and contemplate on God and His Word
            2) Keep your mind in communication with God via prayer
            3) Involve your mind in spiritual worship via frequent
               assembling with others
            4) Center your mind on Jesus via the Lord's Supper
            ...and your mind will gradually be renewed!
         b. With renewed minds, it becomes possible to put off the old,
            and put on the new!
            1) To put off the old man with its sins
            2) To put on the new man patterned after the example of
               Christ
      5. Modern studies in self-improvement confirm this truth
         a. We become what we think
         b. We can change attitudes and behavior by filling our mind
            with positive mental images
      -- In our efforts, we are not alone; God is at work with us! - cf.
         Php 1:6; 2:12-13

   C. WHAT HINDERS MANY CHRISTIANS...
      1. If it is so easy, why do many Christians remain "caterpillars"?
         a. Were they not regenerated at their baptism? (yes)
         b. Don't they have the promise of God's help? (yes)
      2. The problem is likely a failure to renew the mind
         a. Can a mind be renewed on a starvation diet? (e.g., irregular
            Bible study)
         b. Can a mind be renewed on a junk-food diet? (e.g., trashy
            movies and novels)
      3. Why many Christians do not experience transformation...
         a. They become what they think, and much of what they think
            upon is not becoming!
         b. They spend more time watching things of the devil than
            reading things of the Spirit!
      -- Our attitudes and behavior is but a reflection of what goes
         into our minds!

CONCLUSION

1. We have been called to be "transformed" into the image of Christ...
   a. We have all the motivation we need (God's mercies and Christ's
      love)
   b. We have the opportunity to start anew by the washing of
      regeneration
   c. We must allow our minds to be renewed by setting them on things
      above
   -- Are we submitting to "brain surgery" by the Great Physician...?

2. God wants to give us a complete "make over"...
   a. He has provided the means (Jesus' blood)  to remove the deformity
      of sin
   b. He provides the tools (Bible study, prayer, fellowship) to fashion
      a new person
   -- Are we making good use of the mercies of God?

In light of God's wonderful grace, this is our "reasonable" service.
Shall we not prove to the world that God's will is "good, acceptable,
and perfect"...?

Executable Outlines, Copyright © Mark A. Copeland, 2011

From Gary... Old and new

 

You would think by the time I had reached retirement age, I would have seen everything- but NO, here is something NEW!!!  But then again, its not new at all, it is old.  My guess is about 1900, but I am probably wrong on this.  If anyone out there knows when this was popular, please tell me, OK?  What caught my eye was that it is a bicycle designed for three. Nothing fancy, not even gears, it does have something unusual going for it though, namely, TOGETHERNESS!!!  That a couple would even think of purchasing something like this says a lot about their concept of FAMILY!!! And the concept of FAMILY appears to be a dying one.  Why, I wonder?  Love, sharing, caring for one another and raising children together in a God-fearing home are all good things.  Marriage was instituted by God, and for thousands and thousands of years it has worked very well- why change?  There is no obvious answer, except maybe the following...

Jeremiah 6:16 NASB
(16)  Thus says the LORD, "Stand by the ways and see and ask for the ancient paths, Where the good way is, and walk in it; And you will find rest for your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'

Today, same-sex marriages, living together without the commitment of marriage (used to be called a shack-up) and even polygamy are on the rise.  Why? Someone far more intelligent than I could justifiably devote a book to the subject, so don't think I have all the answers, but I do have a few ideas.  First, I blame the media.  Hollywood has glorified every sort of ungodly attitude out there!!!  Think I am wrong... find me an equivalent to "Father knows best" or "The Waltons" today.  And TV shows made today are just as bad!!!  SIN SELLS and its increase is directly do to the greed of those who program the media in order to just make more money.  Another factor is church.  Many churches out there have replaced Bible centered teaching with an emphasis on teaching that makes you "feel good".  Sin has almost become a forgotten word in some places.  And accountability for ones actions... well, I think you know the status of that one.  A country that honors God at the individual level will also do it on a national one. If God (and HIS divine word) are rejected, then over time that society will ultimately crumble. I really like the first part of the Jeremiah passage above, but the second part is a tragedy.  Want to know why marriage is on the decline- its all about ATTITUDE and things will only change when our ATTITUDE TOWARDS GOD AND OUR OBEDIENCE TO HIS WORD DOES!!! And change begins one person at a time- BE THAT PERSON!!!!