CHRISTIAN DEATH (soul) [11f]

The traditional common view is that when Christians “die”, they go to heaven. Yet scripture speaks differently about this subject. The prime example is Lazarus. When Jesus tarried, waiting for a time before going to the aid of his sick friend, he engaged in conversation with the disciples. “Lazarus sleeps, but I go to wake him”. “If he sleeps, then he is recovering” they said. “Then he told them plainly, Lazarus is dead”.

There are many scriptures which talk of Christians who “sleep”. This subject is often misconstrued as “soul sleep”. This is diversionary, the theological common conception of “soul” is wrong. “And man became a living soul” in Genesis is countered by “The soul that sins shall die”.

Those that sleep in the earth?  “Christ the first fruits, then, when he comes, those who belong to him” The resurrection is one of the raising of the dead. Christians are said to be “asleep” because they are not categorised as “dead”, as in “He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for to him, all are alive”  This does not make them “not dead”, they are simply considered to be alive, because at the time of their death, they were spiritually alive to God.  And it says “He who believes in me, will never die”. But, more to the point, they will “never SEE death”. [they will simply fall asleep, like Stephen] [who died].

People who are “asleep” are not conscious of anything, which agrees with the O.T.   “Souls under the alter” in Rev. is figurative, or whatever you want to call it. One has to be very wary about what can be considered as literal in Revelation.

This perspective is completely backed up in scripture, with only minor references in other directions that people like to latch onto, because of traditional backgrounds that contain superstitious elements. The commonest of these is probably Paul’s “I would rather depart and be with Christ”. While on the surface seeming to say he was going to instantly be with Christ, this does not have to be the case. A two thousand year sleep is still just of one second’s duration in perception. The thief on the cross might be another example. “I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise”. Regardless of where the comma goes, there is the possibility that yes, the death Christ was in, was perhaps actually in “the Garden”, which could symbolise that garden of God, that beginning, that origin, where perhaps the thief, having “cutting it fine” in his repentance, was returned to the innocence that Adam had before the fall.

Regardless of some ambiguity, the case is obviously for “sleep” meaning death, in the overall context.

[later edit] [logic would assume Jesus was in the tomb and the thief was in the ground] [ later still. see also acts 13- 36 ]

[see http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/the-dead-are-dead-until-the-rapture-or-resurrection but don’t necessarily believe some of his other material.]

CHRISTIAN DEATH (soul) [11e]

The traditional common view is that when Christians “die”, they go to heaven. Yet scripture speaks differently about this subject. The prime example is Lazarus. When Jesus tarried, waiting for a time before going to the aid of his sick friend, he engaged in conversation with the disciples. “Lazarus sleeps, but I go to wake him”. “If he sleeps, then he is recovering” they said. “Then he told them plainly, Lazarus is dead”.

There are many scriptures which talk of Christians who “sleep”. This subject is often misconstrued as “soul sleep”. This is diversionary, the theological common conception of “soul” is wrong. “And man became a living soul” in Genesis is countered by “The soul that sins shall die”.

Those that sleep in the earth?  “Christ the first fruits, then, when he comes, those who belong to him” The resurrection is one of the raising of the dead. Christians are said to be “asleep” because they are not categorised as “dead”, as in “He is not the God of the dead but of the living, for to him, all are alive”  This does not make them “not dead”, they are simply considered to be alive, because at the time of their death, they were spiritually alive to God.  And it says “He who believes in me, will never die”. But, more to the point, they will “never SEE death”. [they will simply fall asleep, like Stephen] [who died].

People who are “asleep” are not conscious of anything, which agrees with the O.T.   “Souls under the alter” in Rev. is figurative, or whatever you want to call it. One has to be very wary about what can be considered as literal in Revelation.

This perspective is completely backed up in scripture, with only minor references in other directions that people like to latch onto, because of traditional backgrounds that contain superstitious elements. The commonest of these is probably Paul’s “I would rather depart and be with Christ”. While on the surface seeming to say he was going to instantly be with Christ, this does not have to be the case. A two thousand year sleep is still just of one second’s duration in perception. The thief on the cross might be another example. “I say to you today you will be with me in Paradise”. Regardless of where the comma goes, there is the possibility that yes, the death Christ was in, was perhaps actually in “the Garden”, which could symbolise that garden of God, that beginning, that origin, where perhaps the thief, having “cutting it fine” in his repentance, was returned to the innocence that Adam had before the fall.

Regardless of some ambiguity, the case is obviously for “sleep” meaning death, in the overall context.

[later edit] [logic would assume Jesus was in the tomb and the thief was in the ground] [ later still. see also acts 13- 36 ]

[see http://www.truthortradition.com/articles/the-dead-are-dead-until-the-rapture-or-resurrection but don’t necessarily believe some of his other material.]

THE LAW [8d]

What a great subject. “The law is temporary”. “He has abolished the law”. “Until Christ has come” “Now that Christ has come, we are no longer under the law” “Those who are led by the Spirit are not under law”. “We are not under law”. There are many such quotes, but still people refer to the law as though they were its disciples.

If God’s Spirit is working on man, then the law is one of those agents he uses. “For we know the law is spiritual..” But it is a matter of context and relativity and understanding. ” The law is good if a man uses it lawfully…” “The law was not made for good men but for bad”. The law is called “The ministry of death”. Paul said “The law killed me”. So the purpose of the law “It was added because of transgressions UNTIL..” and Paul said “I would not have known sin if the law had not said …do not covet..” So the law was a teacher.

So the purpose of law, which in itself is a standard of right and wrong, is to bring forth a consciousness of sin, since all have sinned. The bringing forth and setting up this consciousness of sin was to prepare men to accept liberation from the law, which was to men, like a hard taskmaster, a slave driver.  Law brings wrath, the fear of judgement. But law alone was unable to produce righteousness, because, of himself, man was hopeless and helpless with regard to righteousness.

We are set free from the law because of death. The death that Jesus had, and the death that we assign ourselves to, in recognition of our own death-worthiness, and recognition that he achieved that for us. So we don’t have to “put ourselves, or our old self, to death”, because that is what Christ did for us. Sin was judged in him, in his body. One man died for all, therefore ALL DIED. The old covenant of law is dissolved by death. The new covenant of the Spirit is here. The Spirit of life.

The “Wretched man” is set free by death, Christ’s death. This death, as a necessary redemptive act, was in reality the painful absorbing of sin by the Son and the Father, as love confronted non-love, or sin. Law was enacted in this operation, and it acted on behalf of man, doing something that he himself could never do, and that is remove his own sin by the action of love..

So Christians are “dead to the law”, because they are “dead in the law” and dead in Christ, just as they are alive in him. And the law no longer has jurisdiction over them. Those who wish to perpetuate the law inside Christianity, are those who wish to keep men in slavery to sin.

law is the residual of the commandment. the commandment is personal, law is detached.

JEFF PATON DESCRIBES R7 [1443c]

Paton has “hit the nail on the head” in attributing the error of R7 to Augustine.   http://www.eternalsecurity.us/romans_chapter_seven_paton.htm

In particular, take note of what is said under the heading of  “AUGUSTINE AND HIS CONFESSIONS”.

“Some see Paul’s language here as a confession of indwelling sin and failure. This goes hand in hand with the popular attitude of spiritual pride that brags about how sinful and unworthy we are. The more self loathing we are, the more spiritual we are, right? At least that is what modern Calvinism argues for. But Calvin’s spiritual Father, Augustine, gave this idea through a record of all his failures called  his “Confessions”.”  ETC.

Now what does this say about people who say things like “wretched man that I am”, and “We are all miserable sinners saved by grace”? Are they not stuck in the very problem that Romans 7 announces? That they are without Christ?

This encapsulates the very problem that this wrong interpretation of R7 creates – the idea that after all Christ has done, that we are still not worthy to be at his side, That reconciliation to God is never fully possible because we are always sinful, regardless of all else.

This is a denial of What Jesus did for us and what has been given to us freely, as a complete gift of righteousness. And this is why they object to the correct view of R7, because then they might be obligated to bring peace to their soul, and this they cannot do.

Augustine’s view leads to the endless confessions of sins, which produces the mindset of slavery to sin, and is no better than the animal sacrifices of old. (..which were a continual reminder of sin..)(..which cannot cleanse the conscience..)

Where John speaks of the confession of sin, he refers to the initial changeover from the sin mindset to the Christ mindset. It is not the confession of sin that cleanses us, but the fellowship that results from it.

The one thing most seem to miss is that Paul is speaking as one in the flesh, which he cements by saying such as “I of myself”, or “I, myself”. And “That is, in my flesh”. In R7 he depicts the empowering of sin because of law, and its dethronement because of grace which follows shortly after. His personal flesh is never empowered in this chapter, rather, he speaks of the potential to sin that lies in us all if we follow after, if we “live in” the flesh rather than the Spirit. R7:5,6 are the two states. You cannot be in both at the same time.

[See comments on 1443b]

JEFF PATON DESCRIBES R7 [1443b]

Paton has “hit the nail on the head” in attributing the error of R7 to Augustine.   http://www.eternalsecurity.us/romans_chapter_seven_paton.htm

In particular, take note of what is said under the heading of  “AUGUSTINE AND HIS CONFESSIONS”.

“Some see Paul’s language here as a confession of indwelling sin and failure. This goes hand in hand with the popular attitude of spiritual pride that brags about how sinful and unworthy we are. The more self loathing we are, the more spiritual we are, right? At least that is what modern Calvinism argues for. But Calvin’s spiritual Father, Augustine, gave this idea through a record of all his failures called  his “Confessions”.”  ETC.

Now what does this say about people who say things like “wretched man that I am”, and “We are all miserable sinners saved by grace”? Are they not stuck in the very problem that Romans 7 announces? That they are without Christ?

This encapsulates the very problem that this wrong interpretation of R7 creates – the idea that after all Christ has done, that we are still not worthy to be at his side, That reconciliation to God is never fully possible because we are always sinful, regardless of all else.

This is a denial of What Jesus did for us and what has been given to us freely, as a complete gift of righteousness. And this is why they object to the correct view of R7, because then they might be obligated to bring peace to their soul, and this they cannot do.

Augustine’s view leads to the endless confessions of sins, which produces the mindset of slavery to sin, and is no better than the animal sacrifices of old. (..which were a continual reminder of sin..)(..which cannot cleanse the conscience..)

Where John speaks of the confession of sin, he refers to the initial changeover from the sin mindset to the Christ mindset. It is not the confession of sin that cleanses us, but the fellowship that results from it.

The one thing most seem to miss is that Paul is speaking as one in the flesh, which he cements by saying such as “I of myself”, or “I, myself”. And “That is, in my flesh”. In R7 he depicts the empowering of sin because of law, and its dethronement because of grace which follows shortly after. His personal flesh is never empowered in this chapter, rather, he speaks of the potential to sin that lies in us all if we follow after, if we “live in” the flesh rather than the Spirit. R7:5,6 are the two states. You cannot be in both at the same time.

JEFF PATON DESCRIBES R7 [1443a]

Paton has “hit the nail on the head” in attributing the error of R7 to Augustine.   http://www.eternalsecurity.us/romans_chapter_seven_paton.htm

In particular, take note of what is said under the heading of  “AUGUSTINE AND HIS CONFESSIONS”.

“Some see Paul’s language here as a confession of indwelling sin and failure. This goes hand in hand with the popular attitude of spiritual pride that brags about how sinful and unworthy we are. The more self loathing we are, the more spiritual we are, right? At least that is what modern Calvinism argues for. But Calvin’s spiritual Father, Augustine, gave this idea through a record of all his failures called  his “Confessions”.”  ETC.

Now what does this say about people who say things like “wretched man that I am”, and “We are all miserable sinners saved by grace”? Are they not stuck in the very problem that Romans 7 announces? That they are without Christ?

This encapsulates the very problem that this wrong interpretation of R7 creates – the idea that after all Christ has done, that we are still not worthy to be at his side, That reconciliation to God is never fully possible because we are always sinful, regardless of all else.

This is a denial of What Jesus did for us and what has been given to us freely, as a complete gift of righteousness. And this is why they object to the correct view of R7, because then they might be obligated to bring peace to their soul, and this they cannot do.

Augustine’s view leads to the endless confessions of sins, which produces the mindset of slavery to sin, and is no better than the animal sacrifices of old. (“..which were a continual reminder of sin..”  “…which could never cleanse the conscience”…)

Where John speaks of the confession of sin, he refers to the initial changeover from the sin mindset to the Christ mindset. It is not the confession of sin that cleanses us, but the fellowship that results from it.

The one thing most seem to miss is that Paul is speaking as one in the flesh, which he cements by saying such as “I of myself”, or “I, myself”. And “That is, in my flesh”. In R7 he depicts the empowering of sin because of law, and its dethronement because of grace which follows shortly after. His personal flesh is never empowered in this chapter, rather, he speaks of the potential to sin that lies in us all if we follow after, if we “live in” the flesh rather than the Spirit. R7:5,6 are the two states. You cannot be in both at the same time.

[See comments on 1443b]

JEFF PATON DESCRIBES R7 [1443]

Paton has “hit the nail on the head” in attributing the error of R7 to Augustine.   http://www.eternalsecurity.us/romans_chapter_seven_paton.htm

[In particular, take note of what is said under the heading of “AUGUSTINE AND HIS CONFESSIONS”.]

Jeff Paton says – “Some see Paul’s language here as a confession of indwelling sin and failure. This goes hand in hand with the popular attitude of spiritual pride that brags about how sinful and unworthy we are. The more self loathing we are, the more spiritual we are, right? At least that is what modern Calvinism argues for. But Calvin’s spiritual Father, Augustine, gave this idea through a record of all his failures called his “Confessions”…”   and ETC.

Now what does this say about people who say things like “wretched man that I am”, and, “We are all miserable sinners saved by grace”? Are they not stuck in the very problem that Romans 7 announces? That they are without Christ?

This encapsulates the very problem that this wrong interpretation of R7 creates – the idea that after all Christ has done, that we are still not worthy to be at His side, that reconciliation to God is never fully possible because we are always sinful, regardless of all else.

This is a denial of what Jesus did for us and what has been given to us freely, as a complete gift of righteousness.. And this is why they object to the correct view of R7, because then they might be obligated to bring peace to their soul, and this they cannot do.

Augustine’s view leads to the endless confession of sins, which produces the mindset of slavery to sin, and is no better than the animal sacrifices of old. (..which were a continual reminder of sin..) (..which cannot cleanse the conscience..).

Where John speaks of the confession of sin, he refers to the initial changeover from the sin mindset to the Christ mindset. It is not the confession of sin that cleanses us, but the fellowship that results from it.

The one thing most seem to miss is that Paul is speaking as one in the flesh, which he cements by saying such as “I of myself, or, “I myself”. And “That is, in my flesh”. In R7 he depicts the empowering of sin because of law, and its dethronement because of grace which follows shortly after.

His personal flesh is never empowered in this chapter, rather, he speaks of the potential to sin that lies in us all if we follow after, if we “live in” the flesh rather than the Spirit. R7:5,6 are the two states. You cannot be in both at the same time.

See post 1443b for comments.

 

TWO DIFFERENT MINDSETS [1437a]

The difference between the old and new covenants lies in the fact of two different mindsets being in place, the first one that which is of our natural selves, the second that which is of the Spirit of God.

There is a mindset of the “flesh”, and a mindset of the Spirit. It is this which is referred to in Romans 8 as being “the mind set on the flesh” (is death) but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

By definition, a mindset is something that exhibits a predominant force for one thing over the other. That is, that where the one exists, the other must lose control. And so it is with the natural life or the Spiritual life, the one or the other takes control, to the exclusion of the other.

Theologians get lost in the process of trying to compare the physical with the spiritual. Because of the very process  of having to examine the processes of both life and death, the resultant “foot in each camp” situation results in the inability to clearly perceive the Spiritual. This would explain why they often end up with the wrong view of it all, especially on targeted doctrines where much investigation of the original languages comes into play.

Paul said He had to be careful of this same thing, that while preaching the processes of both life and death, that while he performed this ‘service’, that his mind did not get caught up in that which detracted from his own life ‘processes’ which were in danger of becoming less than the life he was preaching to others. “Analysis brings paralysis”.

If you are trying to maintain the two mindsets at the same time, you end up with what is called a “double minded” situation, a leg in each camp of both natural and Spiritual. Otherwise perhaps known as “nominal Christianity”. When scripture is examined under such a condition, errors will occur, there will be deception and self deception as the ‘logic’ of the “flesh”, given power for the (temporary and false) purpose of analysis, seeks to impose its will on the ‘logic’ of the Spirit.

It is from this deception that otherwise “important” theologians create the terminal error of calling the sin condition the Christian condition. Jesus came to destroy the power of the natural ‘flesh’, our natural humanity. They are blinded to the Spirit and what He has done, and how he works.

TWO DIFFERENT MINDSETS [1437]

The difference between the old and new covenants lies in the fact of two different mindsets being in place, the first one that which is of our natural selves, the second that which is of the Spirit of God.

There is a mindset of the “flesh”, and a mindset of the Spirit. It is this which is referred to in Romans 8 as being “the mind set on the flesh” (is death) but the mind set on the Spirit is life and peace.

By definition, a mindset is something that exhibits a predominant force for one thing over the other. That is, that where the one exists, the other must lose control. And so it is with the natural life or the Spiritual life, the one or the other takes control, to the exclusion of the other.

Theologians get lost in the process of trying to compare the physical with the spiritual. Because of the very process  of having to examine the processes of both life and death, the resultant “foot in each camp” situation results in the inability to clearly perceive the Spiritual. This would explain why they often end up with the wrong view of it all, especially on targeted doctrines where much investigation of the original languages comes into play.

Paul said He had to be careful of this same thing, that while preaching the processes of both life and death, that while he performed this ‘service’, that his mind did not get caught up in that which detracted from his own life ‘processes’ which were in danger of becoming less than the life he was preaching to others. “Analysis brings paralysis”.

If you are trying to maintain the two mindsets at the same time, you end up with what is called a “double minded” situation, a leg in each camp of both natural and Spiritual. Otherwise perhaps known as “nominal Christianity”. When scripture is examined under such a condition, errors will occur, there will be deception and self deception as the ‘logic’ of the “flesh”, given power for the (temporary and false) purpose of analysis, seeks to impose its will on the ‘logic’ of the Spirit.

It is from this deception that otherwise “important” theologians create the terminal error of calling the sin condition the Christian condition. Jesus came to destroy the power of the natural ‘flesh’, our natural humanity. They are blinded to the Spirit and what He has done, and how he works.

DEATH IS THE ABSENCE OF (THE SPIRIT OF) LIFE [1435a]

Life was lost a long time ago. “Once I was alive apart from law, but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died”. The spirit of natural life had been present, but as a law of total comprehension arrived, as the consciousness of the ‘bigger picture’ and our place in it arrived, death enveloped us in its cloud of negativity as the polarisation of right and wrong materialised in our thinking.

The division of conscious and subconscious is probably a factor in this. The biblical observation is that we should be like children, which means we should be relatively carefree and operating from a spontaneity of thought, word, and action. Our psychology should be an ‘upfront’ one which doesn’t have to do a doubletake before we say what comes to mind, or where we have to do a double check in our mental processing before we say or do whatever, because we are fearful of any repercussions of that word or deed. We should be an outward projection of our inner being, our life in the Spirit, of our ‘alive’ spirit.

And that may give an indication of how love works.