Let's Get Physical--Foundational Essay on the Resurrection Body

Tekton Apologetic Ministries ^ | n.d. | J.P. Holding

[EthanNorth]

Let's Get Physical

---

Foundational Essay on the Resurrection Body James Patrick Holding

---

I have noted that at the core of many skeptical or other arguments on the resurrection of Jesus Christ lies a base assumption that the epistalory NT records could (or must) be interpreted as saying that the resurrected Jesus was not a being with a physical body (as the Gospels make clear), but rather was some sort of ghostly or spiritual being that was not tangible. From this skeptics may run with another ball -- the visions of Jesus were mass hallucinations, or some such like that. The Secular Web's Mr. Friendly Ice-Cream Man, Robert Price, puts it this way in a response to William Lane Craig:

Many New Testament scholars have observed that the conception of the resurrection body implied in 1 Corinthians 15 clashes so violently with that presupposed in the gospels that the latter must be dismissed as secondary embellishments, especially as 1 Corinthians predates the gospels. Craig takes exception. The whole trend of his argument seems to me to belie the point he is ostensibly trying to make, namely that any differences between the two traditions do not imply that 1 Corinthians allows only sightings, subjective visions, while the gospels depict more fulsome encounters replete with dialogue, gestures, touching, and eating. Nothing in 1 Corinthians 15 rules out such scenes, he says. But surely the very urgency of the matter shows that Craig would feel himself at a great loss if he had to cut loose all those juicy gospel resurrection stories to be left with the skimpy list of terse notes in 1 Corinthians 15. By itself, 1 Corinthians 15 just wouldn't mean much. He wants the appearances of 1 Corinthians 15:3-11 to be read as if they had in parentheses after them "See Luke 24; Matthew 28; John 21."

Now even if indeed the rez body (as we shall say) was not physical, this does not automatically disqualify the authenticity and revelatory authority of the appearances; it merely gives some critics another level of excuses to appeal to. But we need not make that point. The purpose of this essay is to demonstrate that the rez body of Jesus clearly was physical, and that this is shown in two ways:

1. The Jewish contextual literature of the period that describes the nature of resurrection.
2. The NT epistles themselves, which many skeptical and other critics fail to understand properly.

---

Our survey of background Jewish literature is taken from Pheme Perkins' work Resurrection. Although not all Jews held uniform ideas about resurrection, it will become clear from this survey that the concept always involved a physical reconstitution of the deceased body. There is no room or place for the idea of a "spiritual resurrection", which is an unknown concept in this context, an oxymoron like "square circle" or "concrete rubber".

We may begin our survey with relevant material from the OT:

Daniel 12:2-3 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

Ezekiel 37:1-12 The hand of the LORD was upon me, and carried me out in the spirit of the LORD, and set me down in the midst of the valley which was full of bones, And caused me to pass by them round about: and, behold, there were very many in the open valley; and, lo, they were very dry. And he said unto me, Son of man, can these bones live? And I answered, O Lord GOD, thou knowest. Again he said unto me, Prophesy upon these bones, and say unto them, O ye dry bones, hear the word of the LORD. Thus saith the Lord GOD unto these bones; Behold, I will cause breath to enter into you, and ye shall live: And I will lay sinews upon you, and will bring up flesh upon you, and cover you with skin, and put breath in you, and ye shall live; and ye shall know that I am the LORD. So I prophesied as I was commanded: and as I prophesied, there was a noise, and behold a shaking, and the bones came together, bone to his bone. And when I beheld, lo, the sinews and the flesh came up upon them, and the skin covered them above: but there was no breath in them. Then said he unto me, Prophesy unto the wind, prophesy, son of man, and say to the wind, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Come from the four winds, O breath, and breathe upon these slain, that they may live. So I prophesied as he commanded me, and the breath came into them, and they lived, and stood up upon their feet, an exceeding great army. Then he said unto me, Son of man, these bones are the whole house of Israel: behold, they say, Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost: we are cut off for our parts. Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel.

Is. 26:19 Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise.

These three passages, especially Ezekiel, are programmatic for the concept of resurrection. Now here are cites from Judaism at the time of Jesus:

4 Ezra 7:32 The earth shall restore those who sleep in her, and the dust those who rest in it, and the chambers those entrusted to them.

1 Enoch 51:1 In those days, the earth will also give back what has been entrusted to it, and Sheol will give back what it has received, and hell will give back what it owes.

Sib. Or. IV ...God Himself will refashion the bones and ashes of humans and raise up mortals as they were before.

2 Baruch 50:2ff For certainly the earth will then restore the dead. It will not change their form, but just as it received them, so it will restore them.

Pseudo-Phocylides 103-4 ...we hope that the remains of the departed will soon come to light again out of the earth. And afterward, they will become gods.

---

Let's now work with the NT evidence, starting with the positive arguments for a physical rez body:

1. Paul's word for "body" can have no other meaning than a physical body. In this regard, Gundry's landmark study of the word used for "body" (soma) makes it quite clear that something physical in intended. In Soma in Biblical Theology, Gundry examines the use of soma in other literature of the period and shows that it refers to the physical "thingness" of a body. It is often used in a sense that we would say, "We need a body over here" with reference to slaves who are used as tools; to soldiers who are on the verge of death, to passengers on a boat, and to people in a census. In other places it is used to refer to a corpse (and so cannot refer by itself to the "whole person" as some influenced by Bultmann have suggested). Xenophon (Anabasis 1.9.12) refers to the people entrusting Cyrus with their possessions, their cites, and their "bodies" (somata). Plato refers to the act of habeus corpus in terms of producing a soma. Aristophanes refers to the throwing of a soma to dogs. It is used by Euripides and Demosthenes to refer to corpses.

• Paul's 1 Cor. 15 examples are analogous to a physical body.

Paul is answering the question posed by the Corinthians, "How are the dead raised up? and with what body do they come?" His answers refer to appropriate physical bodies, suitable for various types of existence -- "somatic variety with the universe" [Harr.RI, 119]. This is not appropriate if Paul has in mind a spiritual, disembodied "resurrection". And of course, he refers back to Christ's own body (1 Cor. 15:3ff) as an example of this principle in action, a "positive and emphatic correlation" between the resurrection of Christ and that of the believer. [Gundry, 172]

• The word anastasis can only mean bodily resurrection.

This word is used 44 times in the NT. In the Synptics we have this episode: "The same day came to him the Sadducees, which say that there is no resurrection..." In John we have: "And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation," a clear allusion to Daniel 12; also "Martha saith unto him, I know that he shall rise again in the resurrection at the last day." Acts uses this word to explain what happened to Jesus. "But when Paul perceived that the one part were Sadducees, and the other Pharisees, he cried out in the council, Men and brethren, I am a Pharisee, the son of a Pharisee: of the hope and resurrection of the dead I am called in question."; "And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust." Paul uses anastasis as well to refer to what happened to Jesus (Rom. 1:4, 6:5; 1 Cor. 15; Phil. 3:10). It is used to describe a physical, bodly resurrection in Heb. 11:35, and is found as well in 1 Peter.

Skeptics may wish to argue, "Well, the Gospels and Hebrews meant one thing, and Paul meant another." But anastasis is not so easily disposed of. It is clearly a technical term for bodily resurrection, and it is the burden of critics to prove otherwise.

• 2 Cor. 5 shows that a physical body is in view.

"Now we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked. For while we are in this tent, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now it is God who has made us for this very purpose and has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come." Here, Paul describes the earthly body as a "tent" (i.e., temporary living structure) and the new body as something that is a "building" built by God, something that one is "clothed" with (the verb in question has the connotation of "pulling one garment on over another one" - Craig.ANTE, 151), something that the Spirit is a "deposit" for! How much more of a suggestion of being tangible and material do we need?

• Phil. 3:21

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. It is clear from this little verse that Paul regards Christ as now having a "glorious" body (soma). This is clear testimony to a physical resurrection.

• A transfer to an idea of a physical rez from a spiritual one makes no sense in the social context.

In view of the expanding Gentile mission, it is hard to see how an embellishment from "disembodied" to "embodied" could take place. The Greeks perceived such events as a resurrection, initially, as a "resuscitated corpse" - rather like our Creature Feature zombies! Paul would have had no problem preaching a disembodied spirit to the Gentiles; but doing that, then switching it to "physical" as in the Gospels, would have been highly counterproductive to missions. As Perkins [Perk.Rz, 61] observes:

Christianity's pagan critics generally viewed resurrection as misunderstood metempsychosis at best. At worst, it seemed ridiculous.

This view is reflected for example by Celsus, who responded thusly to the idea of resurrection: "The soul may have everlasting life, but corpses, as Heraclitus said, 'ought to be thrown away as worse than dung'". Plutarch similarly said it was "against nature" to "send bodies to heaven" and that only pure souls "cast no shadows" (i.e., had no bodies) and he even rejected accounts of bodily translations on this basis. "The funeral pyre was said to burn away the body so that the immortal part could ascend to the gods." [73] There were cases of temporary resuscitation, but these occurred before the person was buried and in almost all cases before they entered the realm of the dead. In such cases the person died again eventually -- which does not conflict with hostility to, or rejection of, resurrection. (See Peter Bolt, "Life, Death and the Afterlife in the Greco-Roman World", in Life in the Face of Death, Eerdmans, 1998.)

Note as well that in 1 Cor., Paul is addressing advocates of asceticism and libertinism -- points of view associated with those who thought matter was evil and at the root of all of man's problems. Platonic thought supposed that "man's highest good consisted of emancipation from corporeal defilement. The nakedness of disembodiment was the ideal state." [Harr.RI, 116] If the critics are right, Christianity took a big and significant step backwards that should have killed it in the cradle, or at least caused historical reprecussions and divisions that would still be in evidence.

---

Thus is our "pro" case for a physical rez body; what about the counter-arguments? Robert Price claims above that the Gospel pictures of the rez Jesus clash "violently" with those in the epistles -- mainly, Paul's material in 1 Cor. 15. Is this truly the case? Let's start with the biggest "con job" in the whole lot:

1. "Paul can't possibly be referring to a physically resurrected body, because he clearly says that 'flesh and blood' cannot inherit the Kingdom of God. (1 Cor. 15:50)

   This cite is usually contrasted with Luke 24:39: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. It's clear enough that the phrases compared are different in a key way: "flesh and blood" versus "flesh and bones." A difference that is no difference, the skeptic may say. Really? Not at all. The phrase "flesh and blood" is "a typical Semitic expression denoting the frail human nature." It is a phrase that reflects a conceptual unity, rather than a physical aspect of the body; and this is supported by the use of the singular "is" rather than the plural "are." [Craig.ANTE, 141] Thus, as Craig also points out, the second half of the parallel in 1 Cor. 15:50 (corruptible/incorruptible) is "Paul's elaboration in other words of exactly the same thought" [Craig.BR, 60] - perhaps making it more clear to the Greeks in his audience who would not "get" the Semitic turn of speech. (This relates to the Semitic Totality concept, which we explore here.)

   Similar use of the phrase "flesh and blood" is found in Sir. 14:18 and 17:31, Wisdom 12:5, and in the works of Philo, as well as elsewhere in the NT, and in rabbinical literature. Craig also points out that Paul uses the phrase "flesh and blood" in the sense of "people" or "mortal creatures" elsewhere: Eph. 6:12 "For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms." - It is also used this way in Gal. 1:16. Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 121], reflecting both on this phrase and the word "flesh" as used in v. 39, comments:

   The connotation of the word is not merely, if primarily, physical, but describes the whole totality and would therefore comprehend the mental or psychological as well. It is used in biblical literature to emphasize frailty, creatureliness, weakness, etc., and is, for that reason, the opposite of 'spirit,' which is always connected with the idea of strength.

   This fits in with what Craig is saying: "flesh" = weakness; spiritual body = strength. And Orr and Walther [Orr.1COR, 349-50] state:

   Paul may mean the material substance of bodies, composed of flesh and blood; or the phrase may have a quasi-technical significance, referring to humanity. If he means the former, then certainly God's kingdom is in the future. If he means the latter, then he seems to be referring to the natural human being in other terms. The other two uses of this phrase in the Pauline literature, Gal. 1:16 and Eph. 6:12, suggest the second option (cf. also Matt. 16:17 and Heb. 2:14). (emphasis added)

   Let us also add the opinion of Perkins [Perk.Rz, 306]. For her, "flesh and blood" is:

   ...a Semitic expression for human being (as in Gal. 1:16). It often appears in contexts that stress creatureliness and mortality. (emphasis added)

   We have thus seen what "flesh and blood" means; what about "flesh and bones"? This is not an anatomical description, but a reflection of the Jewish concept of resurrection, an emphasis on physicality. In the OT, it is the bones that are raised and preserved for the resurrection; hence, the phrase "connotes the physical reality of Jesus' resurrection." [ibid., 69] This was why Jewish belief held great concern for the preservation of the bones - hence, the use of ossuaries to keep them in one handy container. [Craig.ANTE, 144] Jesus is thus assuring the disciples that they are not merely seeing a ghost, but a resurrected body - the stress is on corporeality, not constituency. As Harris notes, "flesh and blood" would not be used for this sort of emphasis, not only because of the connotation of that phrase in association with weakness and corruptible life, but also because blood wasn't something that could be touched [Harr.RI, 54].

2. "Paul can't be referring to a physical body, because in 1 Cor. 15:45 he says that Jesus became 'a life-giving spirit.'"

   This does not follow from the text at all in terms of disproving a physical rez body. Paul says that Adam became a "living soul" -- he is not saying that Adam became a disembodied soul; nor is he, then, saying that Christ became a disembodied spirit. [Craig.ANTE, 137] In light of the explanation by Paul previous to this verse, it correllates to the natural body made at Adam's creation versus the "spiritual body" created at the Resurrection, or what Craig believes is better referred to as the "supernatural body." As Dahl [Dahl.RoB, 81-2] puts it:

   God's eschatological plan demands that if a man is a body-animate, he can and will be a body-spiritual...That is to say, his ultimate destiny is to be a totality not simply animated by the spirit (which might be said of other kinds of 'flesh'), but a totality taken up into the life of the Spirit himself, so that the whole totality is so controlled and possessed by the Spirit that it shares his life-giving powers....the second man derives his glory and power direct from heaven.

   And Jansen [Jans.RJC, 106-7] adds:

   The stress is not on the relationship of Lord and Spirit but on the contrast between the physical body and the spiritual body. The exalted Christ not only has a spiritual body but is himself the life-giver, in contrast to the first man who became a living being...Paul views the first and the last Adam as inclusive figures (as in Romans 5) in whom we see the whole of human history.

   Thus, this verse "contrasts the two heads of two different families" [Ladd.IBRz, 117]by way of their orientation. More practically, the parallelism Paul is attempting to Genesis 2:7 would have been lost had he referred to Jesus' body. [Craig.ANTE, 138]

3. "Paul could not mean a physical body -- he refers to a 'spiritual body'." Price suggests that this refers to a body that is immaterial, or some sort of angelic substance, spiritual in nature. Mormons may find this useful for their own doctrine of spirit as a sort of substance. The phrase actually means not a disembodied spirit, but a tangible body dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - thus Craig prefers the term, "supernatural" body, in accordance with the Greek terminology:

152. pneumatikos, pnyoo-mat-ik-os'; from G4151; non-carnal, i.e. (humanly) ethereal (as opposed to gross), or (daemoniacally) a spirit (concr.), or (divinely) supernatural, regenerate, religious:--spiritual.

Harris points out that Greek adjectives ending in -ikos "carry a functional or ethical meaning" [Harr.RI, 120]. Consider there sample verses where, obviously, pneumatikos could by no means be referring to something immaterial:

Rom. 1:11 I long to see you so that I may impart to you some spiritual gift to make you strong...(Does this refer to a gift that is made of some "luminous angelic substance" or is simply immaterial?)

Gal. 6:1 Brothers, if someone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently. But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted. (Is Paul talking to people who are CURRENTLY made of an "angelic substance" or are immaterial?)

The point, then, being made by Craig is that Jesus' resurrection body was dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit - not "made of" spirit. "Spiritual" here is an adjective describing an orientation, not a status of existence.

Pushback: But can Paul have imagined that Jesus's body during his earthly life was not already dominated and directed by the Holy Spirit? Ours, maybe, but his? One cannot ignore the parallel being drawn between Jesus and the resurrected believer throughout the chapter. And to say that "it is raised a spiritual body" means only "it is raised" is a piece of harmonizing sleight-of-hand...

Here our critic, Robert Price, has missed the point. Of COURSE Paul "imagined" that Jesus had an earthly body that was not "dominated and directed" by the Holy Spirit, as indeed the Gospels, and even Paul, teach: It was a body that got hungry, got thirsty, wept, was born of a woman, was descended from David, and was crucified and killed. The post-resurrection body, on the other hand, was/is NOT subject to weaknesses, according to Paul. This is the whole thrust of the parallel between Jesus' RESURRECTED body - NOT His earthly one - and the believer's resurrected body! Paul said of Jesus in His earthly body: "Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness." - Phil. 2:5-7. And: "For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering." - Rom. 8:3. The earthly body of Jesus was just as frail as ours; but it is the RESURRECTED body of Jesus that is under the domination of the Spirit - or as Craig puts it, is Spirit-oriented - not the earthly one, in either case. What Price has apparently done here is confused the idea that Jesus received COUNSEL and DIRECTION from the Holy Spirit with the idea that His bodily material was itself dominated by the Holy Spirit on the material, earthly level. The two concepts are in no way the same!

• "Peter doesn't believe in a physical resurrection. He says that Jesus was 'put to death in flesh but made alive in spirit' (1 Peter 3:18). He also doesn't mention the empty tomb where he should (5:1)." We have dealt with the first cite with reference to the Mormons: the phrase here is by the Spirit, meaning the mode whereby Jesus was raised. The verb "quickened" is used elsewhere to describe physical resurrection (John 5:21, 1 Cor. 15). As for 5:1, I challenge critics to make a case that this was a place where anything like the empty tomb should be mentioned: "The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed..."

• "Why not preach a bodily resurrection? It is a more concrete and wonderful proof of victory over death." How so? The body is not present, so "concreteness" is out the window. The empty tomb is explained no more easily. It is not "wonderful" unless you agree that the body is worth saving, which the pagans did not believe. It only makes the job harder to do.

• "There were other instances of the doctrine being messed with; what about 1 Corinthians? Maybe the switch was one of these mess-ups." Such an objection merely begs the question, and arguing for "guilt by association" because of other mess-ups is not valid. Moreover, as noted, the Corinthian controversy was one that denied a physical resurrection! The only other mess-up supposed that the resurrection of believers had already taken place -- an issue of timing, not nature. Further speculation that the "spiritual rez" idea was lost or suppressed are no more than begged questions as well.

• "Other Jewish sects did not believe in a physical resurrection. Why not Christianity also?" Be careful when this is offered; it is a trick question! Saying "physical resurrection" is like saying "round circle." Many writers (including some scholars, but mostly uninformed skeptics) speak of "spiritual" resurrection but they use the term improperly. To use a prime example, according to Josephus, the Essenes had a doctrine that "righteous souls go to a place of blessedness." It should be first noted (as by N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God, 326f) that it is possible that Josephus' description here is somewhat affected by his attempt to depict the various divisions of Judaism as Hellenistic philosophical schools. Read improperly, his description of the Pharisee belief suggests that they believed in reincarnation! The best authority for Essene belief is Essene documents, and on the matter of resurrection, they are silent, though Wright, following Vermes, believes that at least some Essenes embraced physical resurrection.

  That said, what if Josephus is indeed accurate? Then we do not have, by definition, "resurrection" -- we have apotheosis. Or actually, maybe we only have pre-resurrection stirrings. There are other passages like these which some speak of as counter to resurrection, but in these cases what we likely have (as in Wisdom of Solomon 3:1, 5:16, 6:17-20, and Josephus on the Essenes) is a description of life for those between death and resurrection, with no actually negative indications against resurrection. In any event it is unwise to proceed without caution and assert that we have evidence that Christianity could have preached a "spiritual resurrection." It is especially dangerous to use cites uncritically, for as Wright also notes, in describing the intermediate state, Jewish writers sometimes borrowed Hellenistic language "which in its own context denotes a permanent disembodied state; but they still make it clear that bodily resurrection is the end they have in sight."

  Finally, it is illict to use Eccl. 12:7 as a point against phsyical resurrection in light of that book's genre (see also here).

  ---

  Conclusion -- There is no way to escape the fact that the contextual background of the NT, and the NT itself, clearly teaches a Jesus whose body was physically resurrected into tangible form. Proponents of a "spiritual" resurrection are either misinformed or else are trying to "escape from the scandal of a physical resurrection." [Gundry, 163]

  ---

  Addendum: "Firstfruits" of the Resurrection: In light of the above it has been shown tha certain skeptical contentions about Christ's order as the first resurrected are also wrong. The raising of Jairus' daughter, and of Samuel as a ghost, do not fit in this paradigm.

  THe one set of people who do fit in the paradigm are Matthew's resurrected saints. At this point some skeptics may bring in two verses:

  Acts 26:23 That Christ should suffer, and that he should be the first that should rise from the dead, and should show light unto the people, and to the Gentiles.

  Wouldn't Matt's saints be "first"? In chronology, yes, but that is not the sense here. In Acts the word used for "first" is protos, and it can mean first in order, but it also can mean first in importance. For example, Matthew 10:2 reads, "Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother...." This is clearly a ranking of importance recognizing Peter as the "chief" of the apostles in rank. If it were a numerical listing, we would read, "...second, Andrew..."

  1 Cor. 15:20 But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of them that slept.

  This verse is not relevant to chronology, either. The word "firstfruits" is aparche, which alludes to the Jewish firstfruits sacrifice. Matthew's saints were not sacrifices at all as Jesus was.

  ---

  Sources

  • Crai.ANTE -- Craig, William Lane. Analyzing the New Testament Evidence for the Resurrection
  • Craig.BR - Craig, William Lane. "The Bodily Resurrection of Jesus, " Gospel Perspectives: Studies of History and Tradition in the Four Gospels. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1980.
  • Dahl.RoB - Dahl, M. E. The Resurrection of the Body. Napierville: Alec R. Allenson, 1962.
  • Harr.RI -- Harris, Murray. Raised Immortal. Eerdmans, 1983.
  • Jans.RJC - Jansen, John Frederick. The Resurrection of Jesus Christ in New Testament Theology. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1980.
  • Ladd.IBRz - Ladd, George Eldon. I Believe in the Resurrection of Jesus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975.
  • Orr.1COR - Orr, William E. and James Arthur Walther. 1 Corinthians. New York: Doubleday, 1976.
  • Perk.Rz - Perkins, Pheme. Resurrection: New Testament Witness and Contemporary Reflection. New York: Doubleday, 1984.

[the808bass]

71 posted on 01/11/2003 10:42 AM EST by the808bass (come back, Doug)

Your quoting skills are worse than Ethan's. If you'd bothered to quote the first sentence of my post to Doug, you'd have quoted the following....

You and I disagree on a number of doctrinal issues, serious doctrinal issues. So serious that I fear for your salvation.

Which apparently warranted this from you...Yea come back to the NET where we will love you right into hell..being nice is the only REAL truth

You're thickheaded. See? I can be not nice.

[the808bass]

Bye Doug, don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.....

So get the last word in if you like. Or claim victory if you feel it's edifying.

You managed both quite nicely. Hooray!

[RnMomof7]

808..I have seen Doug loved to death on that thread..When I first bothered to find out his church I posted it on the NET..there was some discussion for a day or so and at one point one of the RC's told him they thought he was saved..then it all went away..and doug was treated as a fellow believer with his heresy being thrown into the mix of all discussions as if it had any substance. The only hard discussion was on the sabbath keeping (surely not a matter of salvation)

Doug has been allowed to live in his delusion of being a Christian there and accepted there as a christian.He has not been forced to look at what he really believes before the last couple of weeks when Ethan and the calvinists have confronted his error in an attempt to restore him to the body...and that 808 is the truth ..all doctrine is not equal or equally valid.

[the808bass]

and that 808 is the truth ..all doctrine is not equal or equally valid.

And of course, in this post you make some valid comments. But you don't quite admit that I was very candid with him. Do you think that you could admit that? Or you can continue to pretend that all I care is about being nice. Either way.

[RnMomof7]

I am sorry if I misread your intent to doug in that remark...but the truth is the Calvinists you seem to hate so much ( going on the shot you took at me on the NET ) are the only ones that have been persistant in attempting to bring doug to a knowlege of the truth..

If one reads some of this it surely does not sound "loving" there is no "come as you are" altar call..but it is the most loving thing that could be done for doug..IF he hears and repents..

Now it may be that will never happen..that is in the hands of God...But Doug will never be able to stand before God and say he did not know

The same gospel that saves damns those that refuse it

Once again sorry if I misread your intent in that remark..

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Yea come back to the NET where we will love you right into hell..being nice is the only REAL truth

This comment really disturbs me Mom. Being nice to someone does not in anyway mean we are not giving out the truth. It is a major mischaracterization of the NES, and totally uncalled for. BTW look how you alls niceness won Doug over on this thread.

Becky

[RnMomof7]

Mack the question is does "niceness" win anyone to Christ ?.The gospel does not say that Mack..read my tag line ..THAT is what saves

I love the NET ..but the truth is in the name of fellowship doug has been allowed his delusion

Mack if God intends to save Doug He will..but He will use the foolishness of the preaching of the gospel..and that is exactly what has been given to doug for the last few weeks . It has been presented starting in the "smokey back room" and carried to this thread. I do not know Ethans doctrinal stand..but he is uncompromising in presenting the truth to doug

Jesus says "I am the way the truth and the life" Jesus NEVER preached an easy gospel..he spoke more of hell than heaven..he called men "vipers "that preverted the gospel..

Now it may be that Doug is a reprobate being used to prevert the teaching of the gospel..or it may be he is simply a yet unregenerated saint..but in eithor case it is the gospel that contains life..

My comment on the NET was in response to a misunderstanding on my part of what 808 said. I "thought" he was telling Doug to come back to" neutral ground " where he would be left undisturbed..thus my comment..I know that you and Becky grieve for the lost..I never meant to say differently

[nobdysfool]

If you cannot see the clear implication that is made by putting those two sentences directly next to each other then I cannot make you see it.

There is a difference between implying something (or saying something in such a way that it could be seen as implying it) and actually coming right out and saying it. Doug went from objecting to the implication he felt was there to actually saying that Ethan had accused Doug of threatening his family. Any way you slice it, it was an out-and-out LIE. Doug plays fast and loose with the truth when he is cornered. Maybe you never saw that in him before, but you did here.

As Rnmomof7 has pointed out, there has been a very concerted and heartfelt effort to help Doug to see that he is in error. It has gotten heated at times, yes. As I pointed out in another post, Truth is not always soft words, softly spoken. Sometimes it's a right cross to the jaw. We tried to reason with him, we tried the soft-spoken approach, and that only emboldened him. Hence, the heating up of the posts, and the clear-speaking of what we know to be true. It wasn't our first choice, but it became necessary. We in America aren't used to having to wrestle with the enemy for the souls of men. We're going to see more of this as the end approaches. It's going to get to a point of serious wrestling and confrontation with the powers of darkness. The point to remember is, In Christ, we win.

[RnMomof7]

We in America aren't used to having to wrestle with the enemy for the souls of men. We're going to see more of this as the end approaches. It's going to get to a point of serious wrestling and confrontation with the powers of darkness. The point to remember is, In Christ, we win.

It is easy to forget that there is REALLY spiritual warfare..with undercover agents and those that seek to kill the gospel that saves..THAT is why The apostle Paul warns us

  Eph 6:10   Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord, and in the power of his might.

     Eph 6:11   Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil.

     Eph 6:12   For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places].   

  Eph 6:13   Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.

     Eph 6:14   Stand therefore, having your loins girt about with truth, and having on the breastplate of righteousness;

     Eph 6:15   And your feet shod with the preparation of the gospel of peace;   

  Eph 6:16   Above all, taking the shield of faith, wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.

     Eph 6:17   And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God:   

  Eph 6:18   Praying always with all prayer and supplication in the Spirit, and watching thereunto with all perseverance and supplication for all saints;

     Eph 6:19   And for me, that utterance may be given unto me, that I may open my mouth boldly, to make known the mystery of the gospel,   

  Eph 6:20   For which I am an ambassador in bonds: that therein I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

[the_doc]

Gentlemen, do you really think it is okay to be only "chummy" with an apostate? I don't.

(Besides, I don't find angelo to be honest. I regard him as the enemy of the Truth. That was my point when I observed that he was coming to the defense of Douglas. Please re-read #32 and 47.)

[the_doc]

I meant to flag you folks.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Hello false teacher, you ever wonder what it will feel like when God throws you in the lake of fire?

I think God should bring down hell fire on you right now, for leading all these folks into your false teaching.

Repent of your false and wicked ways, so God can forgive you and the false teachings of calvinisim that you so wickedly spue.

I'm taking your advise Mom, no more nice, come out of this false religion that doc has dragged you into.

BigMack

[the_doc]

I don't detect a big change in your spirit here (grin).

***

Anyway, I think I ought to put you in remembrance that this Republic was founded largely by Calvinists. The overwhelming majority of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were Calvinists.

This is historically inarguable. You musn't buy the revisionist histories which say that the U.S. was founded primarily by Deists. Gosh, it wasn't founded primarily by Deists, but primarily by Christians.

Furthermore, you mustn't buy the revisionist nonsense which implies that our nation was founded primarily by Arminians or even Wesley-style Protestants. It wasn't founded primarily by people like you, but primarily by people like me.

This is a historical fact. The fifty-some-odd Framers included three Deists, one Jew, two Roman Catholics, two or three Quakers, a couple of Methodists, one Lutheran, and FORTY-THREE CALVINISTS.

Notice that we Calvinists work okay with religious pluralism. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the Calvinists did not make their marks on American government in the Constitutional provisions they shaped. The U.S. Constitution is a Calvinist's document through and through.

Of course, some of the Deists we sometimes hear about in American history were not signers of the Constitution. Certainly they were influential with the signers. But then again, some of the most important Calvinists--like Patrick Henry--weren't among the signers, either.

***

In any case, by consigning me to hell, calling for the fire of an angry God to fall upon me for daring to present the Calvinistic position of America's Protestant/Reformed forefathers, it would appear that you have committed a kind of religio-political blasphemy against the U.S.Constitution itself.

Think, man. For starters, you need to notice that you have gotten over your head in this one.

(Of course, no one is going to lynch you for your blunder. Ah, but you have the Calvinists to thank for that.)

[RnMomof7]

I think it is always good to stand for biblical teachings mack...so pick a topic at issue and we can all discuss it

[EthanNorth]

the_doc: "This is historically inarguable [i.e., denying the Reformed Christian founding of the U.S.]. You musn't buy the revisionist histories which say that the U.S. was founded primarily by Deists. Gosh, it wasn't founded primarily by Deists, but primarily by Christians."

Ethan: Harvard University professor of history, Dr. Perry Miller, observed:

"Actually, European deism is an exotic plant in America, which never struck roots in the soil. 'Rationalism' was never so widespread as liberal historians, or those fascinated by Jefferson, have imagined. The basic fact is that the Revolution had been preached to the masses as a religious revival, and had the astounding fortune to succeed" (Perry Miller, Nature's Nation. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard-Belknap, 1967), p. 110.

Indeed, one of the more prominent mottos of the War for Independence was "Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God!"

the_doc: "Furthermore, you mustn't buy the revisionist nonsense which implies that our nation was founded primarily by Arminians or even Wesley-style Protestants. It wasn't founded primarily by people like you, but primarily by people like me."

Ethan: That is a categorical fact. Modern, Leftist anti-christian invective, or historical ignorance (including willful ignorance), notwithstanding.

"In terms of population alone, a high percentage of the pre-revolutionary American colonies were of Puritan-Calvinist background. There were around three million persons in the thirteen original colonies by 1776, and perhaps as many as two-thirds of these came from some kind of Calvinist or Puritan connection" (Douglas F. Kelly, The Emergence of Libertly in the Modern World — The Influence of Calvin on Five Governments from the 16th Through 18th Centuries. (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992), p. 120.

the_doc: "Notice that we Calvinists work okay with religious pluralism. But don't kid yourself into thinking that the Calvinists did not make their marks on American government in the Constitutional provisions they shaped. The U.S. Constitution is a Calvinist's document through and through."

Ethan: Dr. George Bancroft, arguably the most prominent American historian of the 19th century — and not a Calvinist — stated:

"He who will not honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty" (George Bancroft; cited in Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination. Philadephia: P&R Publishing, 1972), pp. 389-390.

the_doc: "In any case, by consigning me to hell, calling for the fire of an angry God to fall upon me for daring to present the Calvinistic position of America's Protestant/Reformed forefathers, it would appear that you have committed a kind of religio-political blasphemy against the U.S.Constitution itself."

Ethan: Specifically, the 55 Framers (from North to South):

• John Langdon, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
• Nicholas Gilman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
• Elbridge Gerry, Episcoplian (Calvinist)
• Rufus King, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• Caleb Strong, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
• Nathaniel Gorham, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
• Roger Sherman, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
• William Samuel Johnson, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• Oliver Ellsworth, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
• Alexander Hamilton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• John Lansing, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
• Robert Yates, Dutch Reformed (Calvinist)
• William Patterson, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
• William Livingston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
• Jonathan Dayton, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• David Brearly, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• William Churchill Houston, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
• Benjamin Franklin, Christian in his youth, Deist in later years, then back to his Puritan background in his old age (his June 28, 1787 prayer at the Constitutional Convention was from no "Deist")
• Robert Morris, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
• James Wilson, probably a Deist
• Gouverneur Morris, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• Thomas Mifflin, Lutheran (Calvinist-lite)
• George Clymer, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• Thomas FitzSimmons, Roman Catholic
• Jared Ingersoll, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
• John Dickinson, Quaker turned Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• George Read, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
• Richard Bassett, Methodist
• Gunning Bedford, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
• Jacob Broom, Lutheran
• Luther Martin, Episcopalian, (Calvinist)
• Daniel Carroll, Roman Catholic
• John Francis Mercer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• James McHenry, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
• Daniel of St Thomas Jennifer, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• George Washington, Episcopalian (Calvinist; no, he was not a deist)
• James Madison, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• George Mason, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• Edmund Jennings Randolph, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• James Blair, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• James McClung, ?
• George Wythe, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• William Richardson Davie, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
• Hugh Williamson, Presbyterian, possibly later became a Deist
• William Blount, Presbyterian (Calvinist)
• Alexander Martin, Presbyterian/Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• Richard Dobbs Spaight, Jr., Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• John Rutledge, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, III, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• Abraham Baldwin, Congregationalist (Calvinist)
• William Leigh Pierce, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• William Houstoun, Episcopalian (Calvinist)
• William Few, Methodist

Even some "four score"-odd years later, the supposedly "non-christian" Abraham Lincoln offered the positively Biblical and very Reformed covenantal view of the Sovereign of the Nations and Ruler of history:

"It is the duty of nations, as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon. And to recognize the sublime truth announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations are blessed whose God is the Lord." (Abraham Lincoln, Lincoln's Thanksgiving Proclamation, October 3, 1863. bold emphasis mine).

[RnMomof7]

A ping for the Doctrines of Grace...and for the men that gave us One nation under God

[malakhi]

The God of the OT promised salvation to those that kept his law perfectly..so in all honesty IF you are right and Jesus is not the savior we are all lost, for no man has yet done that except Jesus

God does not expect us to be perfect. He does expect us to repent and ask forgiveness when we sin.

[malakhi]

Not bad for a Jew, your gonna make a good Christian. :)

Why thank you, Mack. And if it weren't for your stubborn clinging to trinitarianism, you'd make a great Jew. :o)

[malakhi]

The difference here is that Douglas claims to be one of us, i.e. a Christian, and we have catagorically proven that he does not hold to correct Christian doctrine about the central belief of Christianity: The bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ. He insists that it is we who are wrong. You make no claim to be a Christian. That's the difference.

I see.

We Jews have a hard enough time figuring out "who is a Jew". In the absence of any central authority (for example, Rome) to declare what is "orthodox" and what is "heretical", how do you define "who is a Christian"?

[malakhi]

Why do I always post to you on Saturday? I'm not trying to tempt you :-)

No problem! I'm away from the computer for the entire Sabbath! ;o)