Thread: 1 Corinthians 15

Who here has studied 1 Cor. 15 from an eschatological standpoint? Particular I am interested in vs.23-28 and 51-52.

I would be greatly interested to know the Dispensationalist' take on this, and the various other interpretations.

I've yet to go to a commentary. Typically I like to dig deeply into the Scriptures, ponder, pray, ask questions from others, and then seek commentary.

So, thoughts?

Aero-

Please hit the signature requirements at the bottom of my post and fill that out appropriately. Thanks.

Web,

My signature shows in my profile. I've never changed it. I have no idea why it isn't showing up. Sorry.

Dustin...

Originally posted by Areopagus
Who here has studied 1 Cor. 15 from an eschatological standpoint? Particular I am interested in vs.23-28 and 51-52.

I would be greatly interested to know the Dispensationalist' take on this, and the various other interpretations.

I've yet to go to a commentary. Typically I like to dig deeply into the Scriptures, ponder, pray, ask questions from others, and then seek commentary.

So, thoughts?

I have spent some time with these texts, especially with Vos' "Pauline Eschatology", which is definitely worth acquiring if you plan on studying these passages.

Without a more specific question, it is difficult to really reply and I am not dispensationalist.

openairboy

[Edited on 31-1-2005 by openairboy]

Open,

Ok, specifically, Paul says:

24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

"Then comes the end..." When? When He (Chist) delivers the kingdom to God the Father (this was done)...after destroying every rule and authority and power (this was done). He must reign until all the enemies have been put under His feet (this was done). The last enemy to be destroyed was death (this was done). So, the end was to come then, yes? If so, what "end" would you say came?

More, Paul says:

51Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

In the context of what has been said, this would be "the end," yes? Paul says that not "all" will sleep (die). So in what time frame would this be in? Do you think Paul meant that 2000 years later, or further on, that not "all" would sleep? Or, do you think Paul was speaking specifically to those recipients of the letter, and yet the truth of this principle is applicable to us as well?

Dustin...

Ok, specifically, Paul says:

24Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

"Then comes the end..." When? When He (Chist) delivers the kingdom to God the Father (this was done)...after destroying every rule and authority and power (this was done). He must reign until all the enemies have been put under His feet (this was done). The last enemy to be destroyed was death (this was done). So, the end was to come then, yes? If so, what "end" would you say came?

Do you deny the resurrection of the body? Taking body to mean the physical body? Is there still death? I realize you will run with "spiritual" death, but were you not "dead in your sins and your transgressions"? Were you God's enemy prior to repentance and faith? No, this hasn't happened. There are still plenty of enemies out and about.

I would say the "end" is the redemption of all things, including the resurrection of the body. Just as Adam would've glorified the cosoms, so will the second Adam.

More, Paul says:

51Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, 52in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.

In the context of what has been said, this would be "the end," yes? Paul says that not "all" will sleep (die). So in what time frame would this be in? Do you think Paul meant that 2000 years later, or further on, that not "all" would sleep? Or, do you think Paul was speaking specifically to those recipients of the letter, and yet the truth of this principle is applicable to us as well?

Dustin...

I don't believe the "we" of v. 51 is any more of a "time frame" reference than the "we" of v. 49. I think Paul is speaking covenantally and includes those beyond the Corinthian community and us today. I regularly speak like this when it comes to the resurrection, so I have no problem with Paul speaking like this. This verse hinges on the previous verses and since you are convinced those are past, then you will be of this verse as well.

openairboy

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by openairboy]

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by openairboy]

Open,

You know, your arrogance and assumption are so offensive, frustrating, and frankly, immature. It's typical of people engrossed into their system vs. authentic dialogue for the sake of refinement.

You say:

Do you deny the resurrection of the body? Taking body to mean the physical body? Is there still death? I realize you will run with "spiritual" death

Really? So you know I will "run with spiritual death?" Wow, that's really prophetic of you. Good job. That was news to me. I appreciate you knowing my thoughts before I do. Interesting, I don't "run with spiritual death." So does that make you a false prophet?

Then you say:

This verse hinges on the previous verses and since you are convinced those are past, then you will be of this verse as well.

Once again, thanks. Assumptions make a, what? of you and me?

Ugh. I'm often perplexed as to why I come back to forums of any kind.

Dustin...

Hey there! I'm a partial preterist and I take these verses to future.
It is the postmillenial hope. Christ is now placing all things under his feet as king. all false philosophies, churches, governments, cultures, religions.
when the last of these will be death. which must be physical if you look at the context of the chapter. then the end will come, the final trump will blow, we will raise from the dead in our new bodies, and Christ will deliver the kingdom back to the father.

Ok Dustin, that is enough...
I don't know where you thought he was beeing arrogant and offensive. I thought he was asking obvious questions that would help explain the talking past one another.

Jonathan stated my opinion well.

Draught,

That is enough? What exactly is that supposed to mean or force me to do? Thank you for the moderation, but I don't believe I'm the one in need of moderating. I asked questions, as prompted by Open, and was given insinuations and accusations. I posted those insinuations and accusations in the form of Open's assumptions. Did you miss that Draught? If you have nothing formative to add, then don't.

Big,

Thanks for your thoughts. Let me tell you why I have trouble seeing this as you do. And maybe it's just oversight on my part. That's probably the case. I lean heavily towards Partial Preterism, but am still working through some stuff. So meaningful dialogue is greatly appreciated - though rare.

You say:

Christ is now placing all things under his feet as king.
____

What does Hebrews 2:8 mean then?

You say:

all false philosophies, churches, governments, cultures, religions.
____

So do I then conclude that false philosophies, churches, governments, cultures, and religions are not all, now, subject to Him? Maybe it's the term, "subject," that needs to be defined. That might be where I'm missing it. But if by "subject" we mean "rule," then all things are subject to Him now, yes? If by "subject" we mean "governing," then all things are subject to Him now, yes? Again, I ask in sincerity.

You also say:

when the last of these will be death.
____

The verse specifically says that the "last enemy to be destroyed is death." In the context, the destroying it is talking about was pointed at "every rule and authority and power." In Colossians we read, "He disarmed the rulers and authorities, and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them in him" (2:15). So, the rulers and authorities, it seems, have been destroyed. But specifically in the context of 1 Cor. 15, Paul says that death too has been destroyed. Both physical and spiritual death has been given to Christ, yes? He destroyed spiritual and physical death for the believer. In the context, as you pointed out Big, it's talking about physical death. This is why my question becomes important.

Paul says in v.51, "Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." So, was Paul saying, "Listen, I'm telling you a mystery. We won't all die physically, but shall all be changed like I've just been talking about"? Or, does he suddenly switch to a spiritualized meaning?

It seems like the context is specific to those people.

Thoughts?

Big,

I may have answered part of my own question. I just noticed that in 15:54-56 Paul clearly says that we claim "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting" at our physical passing.

But this still doesn't clear up Paul's remark about not all of them will die physically.

Dustin...

Originally posted by Areopagus
You know, your arrogance and assumption are so offensive, frustrating, and frankly, immature. It's typical of people engrossed into their system vs. authentic dialogue for the sake of refinement.

D,

Really? So you know I will "run with spiritual death?" Wow, that's really prophetic of you. Good job. That was news to me. I appreciate you knowing my thoughts before I do. Interesting, I don't "run with spiritual death." So does that make you a false prophet?

No, if I was a prophet I would've started it with a "Thus sayeth the Lord..." There were no prophetic undertones in my posting, so does that make you a false prophet? You simply read into my post with your arrogance and assumptions, which is typical of people like yourself engrossed in a system and your response is quite immature. IF you were truly sincere about "dialogue" for "refinement", then you would've asked questions for clarification, but you weren't concerned with that or, as you temper suggests, refinement. I do, however, think I struck a nerve. Oh, by the way, do you believe in the resurrection of the body?

Two months ago I was at a funeral, D. Do you know why? Now, you say, "The last enemy to be destroyed was death (this was done)." The "this was done" in any ordinary language suggests that you are saying that the destruction of death, the last enemy, has been done away with, i.e. this verse is "fulfilled", there is no death, and there are no enemies. So, why was I at the funeral? Has death been done away with? Why do we preach to the unconverted (maybe you don't, but you should let your head pastor know about this)? If not, please explain, using ordinary language, how physical death has been destroyed and how you aren't spiritualizing it and still say "this was done". IF you can show to me where I have made an error in judgment, then I will gladly ask for your forgiveness. If, however, you can't demonstrate to me why I had to attend a funeral, yet you are saying this verse is past tense and is still referring to physical death, then I hope you would an extend an apology.

Then you say:

This verse hinges on the previous verses and since you are convinced those are past, then you will be of this verse as well.

Once again, thanks. Assumptions make a, what? of you and me?

D, D, D, take a deep breath and maybe count to 10 before you post. Where I have I made a false assumption?

You said with respect to verses 24-26 that they have been fulfilled, then you add, "In the context of what has been said, this would be "the end," yes?" The "yes" is leading, i.e. this verse IS talking about the fulfillment of 24-26, and therefore has been fulfilled; remember the several "this is done". You then seek to establish it as a "time frame" reference, which I don't believe it is.

No false prophecy, no false assumptions, just a simple reading of your post with an apt response and then your ill-tempered response.

Cheer up,
openairboy (it's not Open, but openairboy)

Originally posted by Areopagus
Big,

I may have answered part of my own question. I just noticed that in 15:54-56 Paul clearly says that we claim "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting" at our physical passing.

But this still doesn't clear up Paul's remark about not all of them will die physically.

Dustin...

That's not what Paul says. He says, "When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
'Death is swallowed up in victory.'
'O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?'

Dustin, Paul is not discussing what occurs at physical death, this occurs WHEN the perishible body PUTS ON the imperishable and mortal body PUTS ON immortality. THIS MORTAL BODY has not put on immortality; hence the funeral I was at two months ago.

Paul's sequence is clear and this occurs after v. 52 and he isn't referring to physical death, but what happens at the last trumpet.


openairboy

[Edited on 1-2-2005 by openairboy]

Dustin,

Your statements in this thread have necessitated that we ask you this question: Do you believe in the resurrection of the body? Now, because the words "resurrection" and "body" are not unequivocal, let me be clear here. Do you believe that at a day still yet future to us that the physical bodies of those who have died will rise up from out of their graves to face Christ at his judgement seat? Do you believe the physical bodies of those still alive when this happens will be transformed?

If you get bent out of shape about this, I'm sorry, but anybody who says things like "The last enemy to be destroyed was death (this was done)" is going to be asked this question. The Puritanboard is a community dedicated to the truth of Scripture and the faith handed down to us by the fathers. That is, we are committed to the historic Christian faith, which means that we gladly and without reserve affirm those cardinal doctrines that define our faith. One of those doctrines is the future bodily resurrection of the dead. If you deny this doctrine, not only are you at odds with the posting requirements on the Puritanboard, but you are at odds with the Christian faith itself. If you do believe in the future resurrection of the body, then you need to speak in language that reflects this and leaves us no room to question.

In interesting to note that Paul else where users the word "we"to refer to the entire church:

Rom 14:7-8

For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself.
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord's.

2 Tim 2:10-13

Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.
[It is] a faithful saying: For if we be dead with [him], we shall also live with [him] If we suffer, we shall also reign with [him]: if we deny [him], he also will deny us If we believe not, [yet] he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

I think we have the same usage of the word "We" in 1 Cor 15:51-53.

VanVos

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by VanVos]

Craig,

Yes, I believe in a physical resurrection of the body. Yes, I believe that one day Christ will return for His bride.

Open,

It is because of people like you, specifically, that I don't come to boards. I respect a few people on this board and that is why I came with my thoughts. Apparently they weren't articulated well enough for you to accept though. You made assumptions about my beliefs. You made insinuations about where I stand. That's fine. I should have expected such.

Take care guys...

Originally posted by Areopagus
Open,

It is because of people like you, specifically, that I don't come to boards. I respect a few people on this board and that is why I came with my thoughts. Apparently they weren't articulated well enough for you to accept though. You made assumptions about my beliefs. You made insinuations about where I stand. That's fine. I should have expected such.

Take care guys...

Dust,

These are mere assertions, which ironically is the same thing you accuse me of. I asked you specifically to point out where I have made false assumptions and I would gladly ask for forgiveness, but clearly you would rather make accusations and assertions than substantiate them. I showed you how I came to the conclusions that I did...

Sorry, guy, but I'm from Missouri and you gotta Show Me...

openairboy

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by openairboy]

Hey guys....I was reading this thread and found it pretty interesting...Dustin, are you a "full preterest?" If so, do you practice the Lord's Supper?

Oh man! Dustin just changed my romantic stereotype of those brave stalwart swaggering Texans. I for one feel privileged to have the likes of Paul Manata kick my clarkian butt now and then. I can't think of a more thought provoking, test your apologetic boot.

Paul, you better pull your punches a bit so you don't hurt some of the other boys. As for me, THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?! :bigsmile:

PS - Dustin's cut and run doesn't change my view of my favorite Texan, Pastor Way. YOU are THE MAN Phillip. Blessings!

[Edited on 2-2-2005 by maxdetail]

I honestly don't think anyone read my post. And if my not taking kindly to assumptions and insinuations is labeled as weak, not a true Texan, and the rest of the ad hominem thrown out there, so be it in your eyes.

If anyone had actually read what I typed, they would have seen that I lean towards Partial Preterism (although I haven't completely come to terms with where I stand eschatologically). Further, I stated in the first post that I was STUDYING this and simply wanted thoughts. In fact, afer being asked for more specific questions, I posted this:
____

In the context of what has been said, this would be "the end," yes? Paul says that not "all" will sleep (die). So in what time frame would this be in? Do you think Paul meant that 2000 years later, or further on, that not "all" would sleep? Or, do you think Paul was speaking specifically to those recipients of the letter, and yet the truth of this principle is applicable to us as well?
____

The next thing I know I'm lumped into a certain stereotype by Openairboy when he says:

Do you deny the resurrection of the body? Taking body to mean the physical body? Is there still death? I realize you will run with "spiritual" death...

and...

This verse hinges on the previous verses and since you are convinced those are past, then you will be of this verse as well.
____

I pointed out the ignorance in Open stating that I am "convinced" of what he accuses me of being convinced of. More, I found it odd that he already assumed what I would "run with." Neither of his assumptions and accusations were true.

I stated my displeasure in such assumptions and suddenly I'm worse than Paul's child?! I'm throwing a temper tantrum? Guys, I was totally willing to dialogue with the text and with other believers who wanted to dialogue, but this is ludicrous.

Off I go to kick and scream and stay convinced as I push out my bottom lip and run with my view of the texts...

Thanks Paul. I appreciate your thoughts without the sarcasm. Simply stating your point was good.

I look at Colossians 2:15 and Hebrews 2:2-19 and it seems to me that the "rulers and authorities" have been disarmed and destroyed. To what extent do you think these passages parallel to 1 Cor. 15?

The Hebrews passage seems to state that everything has been put in subjection under His feet. Am I wrong on that? Paul even goes on to say in 1 Cor. 15:27 that God has put all things in subjection under His feet.

The last enemy to be destroyed was death. Death was destroyed because of the cross wasn't it? I know that physical death wasn't destroyed. We all still die physically. But death itself was conquered. Isn't that so?

Paul, that's why when I look at this and I see that after these things have been accomplished "the end" is to come - I wonder, what end? That's all. I'm not asking or saying anything else other than it seemed interesting and I wanted peoples thoughts. That's all. So I appreciate you taking the time to give me your thoughts.

Dustin...

Paul,

Thank you for your thoughts. That's what I was looking for - meaningful dialogue.

In your response you say:

I think the already/not yet is handy here. For example, in Hebrews 2 we read:

8and put everything under his feet? In putting everything under him, God left nothing that is not subject to him. Yet at present we do not see everything subject to him.

I see here that everything has been put under his feet, but that they, at present, do not see everything that is already subject to Him. So, the reality that they don't yet see it wouldn't negate all things already being put under His feet. Thoughts?

You say:

So, we can say that the inauguration has happened but not the consumation. For example, David was made King well before he was annointed as king, that is, before he actually took the thrown.

Definitely. The consummation is in the future. I agree. I believe there will be a resurrection of the dead. I believe that Christ is going to return for His Bride.

Concerning the "ruler and authority and power" that must be destroyed in 1 Cor. 15, doesn't Col. 2:15 bear weight on that? Also, in Hebrews 2 we read:

"...that through death he might destroy the one who has the power of death, that is, the devil..."

So, if He destroyed the "one who has the power of death," then doesn't that by default destroy death? In fact, in 2 Timothy 1, verse 10, we read:

"...and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."

Thoughts?

Dustin...

Paul,

I also found this:

"...when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and above every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come. And he put all things under his feet and gave him as head over all things to the church."

That's interesting. Christ is already above "all rule and authority and power and dominion." Col. 2:15 says that he disarmed them. Paul also says here that God put "all things under his feet."

I'm still looking Paul. This may be nothing at all. Then again, it may be something.

Dustin...

Paul,

Death has been abolished/destroyed. That's what Scripture says. So, death, ultimately, for the believer is a non issue. While the physical body will pass away, death has no victory over the Christian. Hence when we die we will say, "Death is swallowed up in victory. O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?" The rhetorical answer, "I have none," says death.

Like I said, Scripture seems pretty clear that Christ abolished death (2 Tim. 1:10; Col. 2:15; Heb. 2:14).

What are your thoughts on the rest of what I posted?

Dustin...

Paul,

Well, then what do you make of 2 Tim. 1:10 and Heb. 2? The one who has the power over death was destroyed. Christ has abolished death. What is your take on that?

Dustin...

Originally posted by Areopagus
Paul,

Well, then what do you make of 2 Tim. 1:10 and Heb. 2? The one who has the power over death was destroyed. Christ has abolished death. What is your take on that?

Dustin...

Has anybody mentioned Revelation 20:13?
And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.


Dustin the biggest issue I have is that people still die. Evidently, Death still has some power in this world. Christ dealt the death-blow to death; that was the already. When CHrist returns that will be the not-yet.

There are a number of ways that one can read 1 Tim. 2:10 and have it make more sense with the reality of death: Death's power and authority have been abolished over believers. Jesus told John in Revelation 1:18 that he has the keys over death and Hades. Why does he have the keys over something that has been abolished? Why is he concerned with something that isn't that important because it has been abolished? GIven the Church's persecution and the potential martydom of John in the future, Christ told John that HE had the power over Death and Hades and that no one would take John out of this world until HE turned the Key.

For a wonderful sidebar on the Revelation passage see Joe Morecraft's partial-preteristic sermon on Revelation, Christ's Victory Over All Opposition

Jacob,

Well, I see what you are saying. Maybe you are right. Maybe it is as simple as a "then, now, and not yet" sort of a thing. However, the context and the verses themselves don't indicate that. 2 Tim. 1:10 seems to indicate something immediate. As well, Col. 2:15 and Heb. 2 do too.

You say:

Evidently, Death still has some power in this world.

But then you say:

Death's power and authority have been abolished over believers.

I agree with both statements, but maybe differently than you. Death has no "power," per se. Rather, death is a lasting ramification of Adam's fall (and our fall with him), but that, as you say, has no "power" anymore. After all, Scripture seems to declare that death has been abolished/destroyed. More, the one who had the power over death was destroyed. Christ holds the key over death and life.

Dustin...

Paul,

"The last enemy to be destroyed is death."

2 Tim. 1:10 - Christ has abolished death
Col. 2:15 - the rulers and authorities have been disarmed
Heb. 2 - the one who had the power of death, and subsequently death, has been destroyed

Question - Is death our enemy? Does it have power over us? Did Christ, or did He not, abolish death? Has the one who had the power over death been destroyed or not?

So, Paul, am I saying that the "death" mentioned in 1 Cor. 15 has been destroyed? It seems so. Is physical death a reality? Yes, of course. But is death our enemy anymore? No. That's what Paul says in 1 Cor. 15. The last "enemy" had to be destroyed. Death is no longer our enemy. It has no sting. Christ conquered death on the cross, yes? Wasn't it abolished? So, death, it seems, has in fact been destroyed.

Dustin...

Paul,

The fact that you won't answer any questions seems odd. I am trying to *work out* this seeming contradiction with you. Just becaues you claim something is a contradiction doesn't mean that it is.

Paul says in 1 Cor. 15:

25For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

Have all things been put under His feet Paul (Eph. 1:21)? And was the last "enemy" destroyed (2 Tim. 1:10)?

If the Scriptures say yes, then there's no contradiction at all. My point is, Paul, that the Scriptures do in fact seem to indicate that these things have occurred.

Dustin...

And by the way, your diversionary tactic in the last post was unnecessary. Asking if I think Paul is an idiot is either a tactic, or just immaturity. Either way it's unnecessary.

I don't think Paul is an idiot. I think Paul was making a very strong point.

Dustin...

Paul,

No, caps don't help. They only restate what has already been said. It doesn't make your claim any clearer. Nor does it make your misunderstanding any more emphatic.

Your *claim* that I have a contradiction is a *non sequitur.* I have tried to tell you more than once, and without the "Paul being an idiot," etc, kind of argumentation, that the "ENEMY" called death has been destroyed. I have even asked you if in fact this is what 2 Tim. 1:10; Col. 2:15; and Heb. 2 says. As best I can tell, it does say that the power of death and the one who has the power of death have been destroyed. I even asked you specifically if death was our enemy? Is it Paul? I don't believe that it is. So, while you continually press me to dismantle some seeming contradiction, I continue to press that there isn't one.

Dustin...

Originally posted by Areopagus
I have tried to tell you more than once that the "ENEMY" called death has been destroyed.

Big D,

I haven't really kept up with the thread, but are you running with spiritual death here?

Thanks a lot,
openairboy

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by openairboy]

[Edited on 3-2-2005 by openairboy]

Paul,

So you are saying that death is still the believers enemy? Death hasn't been abolished? Paul wasn't speaking of something that had happened and that had a perpetual consistency to it because of Christ? So you are saying, then, that for those who die now, death is their enemy? Well, for now I cannot go with that. I disagree.

The Greek phraseology (as best I can tell - I know a fair amount of Greek, but am no scholar - any scholars in Greek are welcomed to help or correct) is the same as 2 Tim. 1:10. Also, the cross references (I just noticed this) of 1 Cor. 15:26 are in fact 2 Tim. 1:10 and Heb. 2. So I disagree with your claim.

Also, you say that 2 Tim. 1:10 is what Christ did for the believers now. Ok, so the promise of being resurrected isn't something that was accomplished at the cross? That enemy, death, and the one who held its power, they weren't defeated?

Dustin...

Paul,

I've been sliced and diced? No, actually I have not. You are unwilling to have a dialogue. You've been debating me since the beginning rather than dialoguing. This is an attribute of people who live in forums. You believe you've found something that alleviates pressure, so you stick to it.

Thanks for your time Paul.

Open,

No.

Dustin...

Originally posted by Areopagus
Paul,

I've been sliced and diced? No, actually I have not. You are unwilling to have a dialogue. You've been debating me since the beginning rather than dialoguing. This is an attribute of people who live in forums. You believe you've found something that alleviates pressure, so you stick to it.

Thanks for your time Paul.

Open,

No.

Dustin...

Paul, go easy on the guy. His cross-references can only take him so far with Scripture, but they can't make him think.

We've come full circle or is it hyper-circle? Dustin shouting, "I'm right; you're wrong. No, I won't deal with any arguments. I want a 'dialogue', and that means agreement with me. If you don't agree with me I am going to pout, cry and say, 'you have a system...you live in forums...'"

He answers me "no" that he isn't running with spiritual death, but then speaking out of the other side of his mouth he says, "I know that physical death wasn't destroyed." Who really knows what Dustin knows? Certainly not him.

Paul,

So much for your "apology." I'm not headed towards hyper-preterism. If you'd listened at all then you would know that. More, I never said that physical death was destroyed. I tried to dialogue about the enemy of death, the power of death, and so forth, but for the sake of learning. Instead I found debate, accusations, assumptions, name calling, branding, ad infinitum. Communication at this point is null and void. I've been sliced and diced, I've made Paul a blithering idiot, I've contradicted myself, and I've done the myriad of other things that have been said.

Truly, it saddens me that this is how things go. Reasoning with people over the Internet, especially people with a motive and mission, is a ridiculous notion.

Dustin...

Dustin,

If I may "pop in" here and lend a helping hand.

I just read the whole thread. Why? I just love 1 Cor. 15. The hope of the resurrection is one of the most glorious truths of the Gospel.

You made mention on a framework question - the now and not yet idea, earlier in the post. I would really take some time to study that overall. Your question would be alleviated if you understood that framework in general for both the OT and the NT. Everything works from a covenantal viewpoint that is housed in a now and not yet schematic that cannot be avoided exact at making the Bible contradict itself, or making it meaningless. For example, Abraham was saved (now - with all benefits) and looking for a city made without hands (hope) not yet. Christ has come and saved me (now) but I am not glorified (not yet). I was spiritually changed (now) but look to the fulfillment of the resurrection later (not yet). Death's sting is conquered (now) but I look forward when death with be abolished later (not yet) at the consummation of the ages when death is thrown into the abyss.

The is a exegetical difference between death, physical death, and the consequences of death, and the sting of death. Death for the Christian is an open door to heaven. But it is still death. The sting of death no longer has teeth (we don't go to hell) but that does not make deathh and less terrible (imagine dying in a fire!). The Greek behind when Christ raised Lazarus from the grave demonstrates a kind of anger and weeping that shows death's affect - It is as if Christ snorted and gurgled as he wept with anger at Lazarus' death. Death is still bad, though it holds no sting for the Christian.

I think what would help greatly is to clarify what you mean:

"Death was destroyed at the cross."

and

"Physical death WAS NOT destroyed."

If you mean physical death in both instances, then Paul is right, you contradicted yourself. If you mean that one is spiritual (like the sting of death is taken away) and the second is physical (like being squashed by a falling rock), then OK. It would help if you clarified that. In none of your posts you made that distinction.

The other passages you quoted in Hebrews and Timothy do no good unless you make this distinction.

[Edited on 2-3-2005 by webmaster]

I am reminded of a David Chilton quote,

"The day I became a postmillennialist I realised that I was going to die."