The "Church Militant"

The errors in that are too numerous to count, but I will try; count on it.

Arguments over the early Christian Church using words like "Militant" is often used by Leftists today who are trying to convince Christians that they should not bear arms to protect their home, families, and their country, which especially includes protecting their way of life as Christians in Christ's Church.

Those on that Leftist propaganda front include pacifists which force someone else to doing their self-defense, and dying, for them while they slander those who died for their right to speak Leftist gibberish; also includes devout atheists and Communists who would like all religious things to disappear off the earth; also includes Socialists which can be of either or both camps of atheists and Communists that hate Christianity; also includes those of radical Islam that have been trying to destroy the Christian West since Islam became a religon around 600 A.D.

The word 'militant' originates from the idea of military (15th century Latin militare), but is in a negative form. Militia is a more fitting word to apply to early Church history when Christianity was forced to protect its homes and people from the Islamic invaders of 700 A.D. into western Europe, and to protect Christians and Jews in the holy lands which the Muslims were persecuting that caused the start of the Crusades. The word 'militia' is also the word used in the U.S. Constitution that requires the U.S. to provide for its protection against enemy invaders. In some Christian nations in Europe still today, the people are given military weapons and ammo to keep in their homes by their government, forming a militia of the people on call in case of foreign invasion. They are required by the government to train with that equipment periodically, both men and women (I think Switzerland is an example).

One of the reasons there is no "Church Militant" or "Church Triumphant" as metaphors in scripture is because in scripture the "church" is never used as a Body of Christ different from Israel, which would have to be Israel reborn in Jesus Christ. And in scripture church is not used to identify that Israel Paul in Romans 2: 28-29, Romans 9: 6-8 and Galatians 4: 25-25 defines as the Jew who is one inwardly, of the heart and of the spirit, who are the children of the promise as the seed of God, and that Jerusalem which is above, is free and is the mother of us all.

Click to expand...

Actually, Paul's idea of the one that is a Jew 'inwardly' is exactly about the idea of spiritual Israel he taught in Romans 9. It can apply to anyone in Christ's Church in the spiritual sense. Per Eph.2 with Paul's "commonwealth of Israel" label, that IS Christ's Church. It's made up of both believing Israelites, and believing Gentiles, as one body, with the believing Gentile inheriting with them God's promises to Israel first written in the Old Testament Books. That is Christ's Church now. The unbelievers of Israel are not the Church, but are still under certain promises from God, but must believe on Christ Jesus to be graffed back into their own natural branches (per Rom.11).

The other Israel Paul talks about is the outward Jew in the flesh, they which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God, and the Jerusalem which now is and is in bondage with her children. In other words, the identity of the Christian believer is not said in scripture to be in the ekklesia, which is really a congregation. The Greek ekklesia is translated as "church." In Acts 7: 38, ekklesia is used to describe the Hebrew group in the wilderness in the Book of Exodus by Stephen, before he was stoned to death by the Pharisees and others in Jerusalem.

Click to expand...

In Gal.4, with the Jerusalem that is in bondage, pointing to "Agar" (Hagar), Paul is referring to when God gave Israel the Old Covenant, and with the children of Hagar (mother of Ishmael, that became the Arab people), wanting to claim that by destroying the orthodox unbelieving Jews out of Jerusalem. That is no longer about God's True Israel, which is only of The New Covenant now, the Jerusalem above that is free that Paul said. The Jerusalem still in bondage idea is about those who specifically fight against Christ Jesus by still trying to claim Jerusalem under Moses.

If the ekklesia, or congregation, is a Body of Christ different from Israel reborn in Christ, then Luke was wrong to have used ekklesia to describe the group of Hebrews in the literal wilderness.

Click to expand...

Nope. God's Church, or Christ's Church, or the 'ekklesia', is still the 'congregation of Israel', which is why Paul used the "commonwealth of Israel' label in Eph.2 for Christ's Church. It's about the children of the same people of Israel of Old Testament times, but now under The New Covenant promise through Christ Jesus, with the believing Gentiles included. The idea of a 'commonwealth' Paul used is pointing back to the prophecy in Gen.48 that Ephraim would become "a multitude of nations". That's what the western Christian nations are about. And then after their taking The Gospel to other naitons, those other peoples who accept Christ Jesus also becoming part of that 'commonwealth'.

The Roman Catholics popularized the "church" as their Body of Christ, separate from the Israel Paul defines in those three texts. In fact, the term the dispensationalists throw at anyone who does not believe in their two groups of God, the "church" and all Israel, or almost entirely physical Israel, is following "replacement theology." Replacement theology in their repertoire of theological terms denotes something very bad.

Click to expand...

Wrong. The idea of Dispensationalism began in 1830's Britain with John Darby and the Pre-tribulational rapture movement. Dispensationalism divides Christ's Church totally apart from God's Israel, still treating the people of Israel as a nation of unbelievers that refuse Christ, but will one day be turned to Christ when He returns, and then with God's promises to them fulfilled on earth then. Dispensationalism does not recognize Christ's Church as inheriting Israel's promises from God. Their doctrine depends upon a creation of a set of all new promises only for Christ's Church, with the Pre-trib rapture idea being one of them they created, and living up in the clouds off the earth being another one. All that has nothing to do with Replacement Theology.

On http://www.cephas-li...gy_history.html

Click to expand...

they say the Catholic theologian Augustine came to "...what he calls a "more satisfactory" view that the Church has replaced Israel forever." The "Church," with a capital C, is Roman Catholicism. But in the Bible church is written without a capital C. Even in the NIV, church has no capital C.

Click to expand...

That idea IS Replacement Theology. The idea that Christ's Church has completely replaced the Israel of the OT, with Israel no longer existing, is what Replacement Theology is about. That's their main reason for refusing to link God's promises to the seed of Israel anymore, and with trying to downplay the fact that Christ's Church is made up of many of the literal seed of Israel today, that are still... Israelites by blood.

Then on http://www.thejerusa...cement-theology

Click to expand...

they say "Welcome to the Replacement Theology column.
View our complete list of Replacement Theology Articles

Replacement theology (Supersessionism) asserts that Church is now the Israel of God and the rightful heir of all the covenant promises originally made to the Jews..." They say that replacement theology was "...made sacra sanct by the Council of Nicea in A.D. 325 and adopted as theologically correct by St. Augustine. It then became a theological axiom by the Catholic Church and, for all practical purposes, remains so today."

The problem in Catholic Replacement Theology is that the "Church," the capital C Church, the "Church Militant," is said to have replaced physical Israel.

The present day "Church," Catholic or Protestant, in America is made up of thousands of corporations under the federal Government's 501© 3) tax exempt IRS status. The "Church" has been leavened (Luke 13: 21) and has by now undergone the falling away from the truth of the Gospel of Christ in II Thessalonians 2: 3. It is a "church" now made up mostly of tares (Matthew 13: 25-30), so that the call in Revelation 18: 4 to come out of "her" is relevant.

Click to expand...

Those ideas are false. The Protestant AND Catholic Churches of today do indeed have many 'tares' within them working the apostasy against God's people, but they are a minority there. The majority are believers that are falling away because of the controls and false un-Biblical doctrines that are being popularly taught to them, EXACTLY as it was in Old Testament times when the crept in unawares took over control of the children of Israel, causing them to fall into idol worship. Nothing has changed with that in regards to The New Covenant today. That false prophet working is still going on today, and won't end until Christ's future return. Christ is going to end all that, and claim His people that love Him, removing their iniquities those 'tares' have caused. Those tares will then be separated from His Church, and we all... will see just who they are.

In Christ's Messages to the seven Churches in Asia, He did not include all that were in the problem Churches in His rebuke. Likewise today, not all Christian people in the Churches are guilty of the falseness goings on amongst them. Christ did not tell the devout ones to leave those problem Churches in Revelation, and nor should we tell other brethren in today's Churches to leave if they feel a need to stay. Some may have a calling by Christ to stay and help others there that are deceived. The Revelation idea to get out of Babylon is a spiritual idea, not a physical idea. It's about leaving 'confusion', for that's what the root word for Babylon means (babel = confusion). For the last days, it means don't be deceived.

Even many of the Calvinists who are critical of the two house theology of dispensationalism hold on to the "Church" as still being the authentic Body of Christ. For example, on http://www.mountainr.../jewsfirst.html Richard L. Pratt, Jr. of the Reformed Theological Seminary says ""It is more accurate to describe the Reformed view

Click to expand...

on the people of God as "unity theology." In this outlook, the New Testament church is one with Israel of the Old Testament."

Click to expand...

Another error, for the concept of 'two houses' in God's Word pertains to a division between the people of Israel into two separate nations ("house of Judah" and "house of Israel"). That has nothing to do with Dispensationalism.

Per God's Word, the "house of Judah" is only about the tribes of Judah, Benjamin, and Levi later known as Jews. And the "house of Israel" became only the ten tribes of the northern kingdom of "Israel" or "house of Israel" per God's Word. They are very specific titles applied to the children of Israel only after God split old Israel into two separate kingdoms after Solomon's days (1 Kings 11 forward).

Dispensationalism's division is between the children of Israel as a nation and Christ's Church, a whole different idea than the two house concept defined in God's Word which is about Israel only.

The Old Testament texts running from II Kings 21: 13, to Isaiah 29: 16 and finally to Jeremiah 18: 1-6 show that God remade physical Israel into Israel reborn in Jesus Christ. Jeremiah 18: 1-6 is the parable of God as the potter who made one vessel which was marred and then made another vessel out of the same lump of clay as seemed good to the potter. Physical Israel was not replaced by the "Church." It was transformed into Israel reborn in Christ. Those in Christ are in that Israel which is reborn.

Click to expand...

Nope. 2 Kings 21:13 was old history, when God was warning the "house of Judah" at Jerusalem of the coming Babylon captivity that was coming. He reminded them of how He had by then already removed the ten northern tribes of the "house of Israel" out of the land by the Assyrians. The Jer.18:1-6 Scripture was about the very same event, God telling the "house of Judah" about the Babylon captivity getting ready to come upon them, and His comparing what He did to the ten tribes with it. ALL that was history, and has no future application for Christ's Church today, nor Israel, except as an endtime 'pattern' or blueprint only.

Physicaly Israel is still... physical Israel today, whether as believers in Christ's Church, or as literal Israelites that still refuse Christ Jesus. The difference is that a portion of the seed of Israel became Christ's Church, with believing Gentiles becoming joined in inheritance with them (commonwealth), while the rest of both unbelieving Israelites and unbelieving Gentiles are still 'cut off'.

Biblical Event Timeline about Israel:::

1. Solomon takes many wives of the nations, and it causes the children of Israel to fall into false idol worship.
2. God splits Israel into two separate kingdoms, giving Solomon's son Rehoboam of Judah one tribe at Jerusalem. The kingdom at Jerusalem becomes known as "Judah", or "house of Judah". The tribe of Benjamin becomes joined with Judah at Jerusalem. A remnant of the ten tribes dwelling among Judah in the south become joined with the "house of Judah".
3. God gives "ten tribes" to Jeroboam, of the tribe of Ephraim (of Joseph). Jeroboam's kingdom in the northern lands of Israel become known as "Israel", or "house of Israel". It includes the larger group of ten tribes of Israel.
4. Jeroboam (Ephraim) in the northern kingdom sets up gold calf idol worship in the north to keep the ten tribes from going south to Jerusalem to worship. The majority of the children of Israel in the north fall to idol worship.
5. The two kingdoms war against each other. Capital of the southern kingdom of "Judah" becomes Jerusalem. Capital city of the northern kingdom of "house of Israel" becomes Samaria in the north.
6 Because of Jeroboam's gold calf idol worship, he sets up common priests of the people, denying the Levites their service. The Levites in the north move south to join with the "house of Judah" at Jerusalem.
7. God brings the kings of Assyria upon the northern kingdom of the "house of Israel" (ten tribes), and begins moving the ten tribes to Assyria and the land of the Medes.
8. The Assyrians conquer Samaria, the city of the northern kingdom of the "house of Israel". The remaining portions of the ten tribes of the house of Israel are removed to Assyria.
9. All the ten tribes of Israel in the north are removed out of the holy lands. The king of Assyria takes foreign peoples from five provinces in Babylon and moves them to the northern holy lands where the "house of Israel" had dwelt. These later become known as Samaritans.
10. The "house of Judah" kingdom at Jerusalem remains. The northern kingdom of the "house of Israel" becomes no more.
11. Around 120 years later, God sends the king of Babylon upon the southern kingdom at Jerusalem, and take them away to Babylon for 70 years. Those at Jerusalem had fell to doing the sins of idol worship that Israel had done. So God took them all away.
12. After 70 years, a small remnant of the "house of Judah" returns to Jerusalem and builds the 2nd temple and Jerusalem, and walls. The northern kingdom of ten tribes is still gone, the northern ten tribes still in captivity to Assyria and lands of the Medes.
13. The majority of the "house of Judah' after the 70 years captivity to Babylon chose to stay, and are then scattered further through the nations.
14. The ten tribes of Israel become lost to themselves, and to the world. They forget their heritage as part of Israel.
15. The ten tribes take other names and customs while in captivity to Assyria and the lands of the Medes.
16. Then ten tribes later migrate out of Assyria, traveling westward around the Cacasus Mountains and the Black Sea, becoming known as Caucasians. They flee into Asia Minor and western Europe.
17. The ten tribes continue in Baal worship in their new lands in the West.
18. Foreigners of the Canaanite peoples creep into Judah and become priests during the Babylon captivity. The "Jew's religion" and Pharisee doctrines cultured in Babylon become the main religious function over the "house of Judah" small remnant in Jerusalem.
19. Christ's first coming to Jerusalem; those false Jews have Him killed.
20. Christ is raised from the dead and visits His disciples telling them to take The Gospel to all nations.
21. Christ's Apostles and disciples take The Gospel to Asia Minor and Europe where the ten tribes are located.
22. Apostle Paul's journeys and captivity to Rome, wants to visit the brethren in Spain.
23. Britain becomes the first people to accept The Gospel on a grand scale 1st century A.D. Britain has royal members captive at Rome during Paul's days, which Paul addresses in his Epistle to the Romans.
24. Paul and Peter executed in Rome.
25. Christians persecuted at pagan Rome.
26. Constantine makes Christianity the religion over Rome.
27. Conversion of scattered Israel in Asia Minor and Europe from paganism.
28. Peoples in Asia Minor and Europe accept The Gospel on grand scales, and become the western Christian nations.


Parallel history of David's Throne:::

1. Nebuchadnezzzar, king of Babylon, comes upon the house of Judah at Jerusalem in king Zedekiah's days.
2. King of Babylon captures Jerusalem, Zedekiah king of Judah removed to Babylon and killed. All his son heirs killed.
3. David's throne at Jerusalem ends.
4. Jeremiah the prophet given guardianship of Zedekiah's daughters per Book of Jeremiah.
5. Jeremiah and king's daughters taken to Egypt where they disappear from Bible history.
6. Sons of Zarah (another son of Judah and Tamar) established in western Europe in Spain.
7. Milesian line of Zarah in Spain move into Hibernia (Ireland) and conquer peoples called Tuatha de Danaan (from tribe of Dan). Kings from Zarah setup in Hibernia (Ireland).
8. "Pharaoh's daughter" (Scota - Zedekiah's daughter) marries Heremon (of Zarah) at hill Tara (Teamhair for Tamar) in ancient Ireland, Stone of Destiny (Jacob's Pillar) appears in Hibernia (Ireland). Ireland becomes known also as Scotia (from Scota). Ireland's kings coronated upon the Lia Fial Stone as Israelite kings were.
9. Royalty from Scotia marry royalty in Alba (before it was called Scotland); ancient Alba becomes known as Scotland, claiming heritage from Milesian kingline and Scota.
10. Ireland's national symbols become the Lion, harp, and red hand (scarlet thread of Zarah per Gen.38).
11. Ireland wars with Scotland; Lia Fial (Stone of Destiny) moved to Scone Abbey in Scotland, becomes called Stone of Scone.
12. Scottish kings coronated upon the stone in manner of Israelite kings.
13. Anglo-Saxon England wars with Scotland. Stone of Scone moved to Westminster Abby and placed in Edward's Chair.
14. England's kings and queens coronated sitting above the Stone of Scone

Actually you don't hav to believe inPurgatory to apply the term "church expectant" to those who have died and are not yet in Heaven. The Roman Catholic meaning does refer to Purgatory but to it can mean the time between the death of a person and the final judgement, since most Christians believe that the soul falls alseep and wakes up on the day of judgement. Therefore the term may refer to the souls of the departed who are currently sleeping and are yet to awake for judgement.

Templar81 said:

Actually you don't hav to believe inPurgatory to apply the term "church expectant" to those who have died and are not yet in Heaven. The Roman Catholic meaning does refer to Purgatory but to it can mean the time between the death of a person and the final judgement, since most Christians believe that the soul falls alseep and wakes up on the day of judgement. Therefore the term may refer to the souls of the departed who are currently sleeping and are yet to awake for judgement.

Click to expand...

I suggest a poll to find out if most here actually believe the soul literally sleeps in the grave after flesh death. Some people throw out the falsehood that most Christians also believe in the Pre-trib rapture too, when that's not true.

I ahve a book somewhere that say's the Church expectant is thosewho have died and are kind of dormant, sleeping only metaphorically before the day of judgement, but here we are talking about Cxhristians who are Heaven bound, not non-Christians or false Christians, but real Christians who are on their way to Heaven.

The idea of the soul sleeping for hundreds, thousands or millions of years and then waking up on judgement day has been around a long time and a lot of people still believe in it. It's not the one I believe in but I can't disprove it, can you?

Now! I belive in Purgatory. The idea that the soul which is Heaven bound still ahs a few sins on it that need to be burned (possibly litterally) off in order for it to be fit to enter into Heaven, sicne no sin can enter there. This is a privilage of believers so that an athiest or a Muslim will not get this, they just go straight to the bowels of Hell, be it as soon as they die or on a specifically appointed day I don't know. However, my gut feeling is that all souls just fall asleep when they die and then wehn they are judged they either get sent to heaven or Hell and some of those souls that are on their way to Heaven have to stop off at purgatory while other don't. Nevertheless I do believe the souls of every person will be judged on a specific day, whioch can never be known to us.

The word rapture is totally unscriptural, so i never use it to talk about the last days.

Also, I don't know it the soul sleeps in its grave or not, I really can't speculate, maybe Sheol!

Templar81 said:

I ahve a book somewhere that say's the Church expectant is thosewho have died and are kind of dormant, sleeping only metaphorically before the day of judgement, but here we are talking about Cxhristians who are Heaven bound, not non-Christians or false Christians, but real Christians who are on their way to Heaven.

The idea of the soul sleeping for hundreds, thousands or millions of years and then waking up on judgement day has been around a long time and a lot of people still believe in it. It's not the one I believe in but I can't disprove it, can you?

Now! I belive in Purgatory. The idea that the soul which is Heaven bound still ahs a few sins on it that need to be burned (possibly litterally) off in order for it to be fit to enter into Heaven, sicne no sin can enter there. This is a privilage of believers so that an athiest or a Muslim will not get this, they just go straight to the bowels of Hell, be it as soon as they die or on a specifically appointed day I don't know. However, my gut feeling is that all souls just fall asleep when they die and then wehn they are judged they either get sent to heaven or Hell and some of those souls that are on their way to Heaven have to stop off at purgatory while other don't. Nevertheless I do believe the souls of every person will be judged on a specific day, whioch can never be known to us.

The word rapture is totally unscriptural, so i never use it to talk about the last days.

Also, I don't know it the soul sleeps in its grave or not, I really can't speculate, maybe Sheol!

Click to expand...

Plenty of Scripture exists, both from our Lord Jesus and His Apostles, to show that our soul with spirit does not literally sleep in the grave after flesh death. That was one of the specific points Apostle Paul was covering in 2 Cor.5 and 1 Cor.15, and our Lord Jesus in Matt.10:28, and Luke 16.

Christ used the expression of 'sleep' to point to one that had died, but it was usually involving those of faith, and not the unbelieving (Matt.9:24; Luke 8:49-56). With the dead maiden example, He even cast the unbelievers out of the room before raising the maiden.

Why would our Lord Jesus use the idea of 'sleep' like that? He said the same thing about Mary's brother Lazarus in John 11, that he was asleep. It confused His disciples, so He finally said that Lazarus was dead. Once again, this was involving families of believers on Him.

Apostle Paul also used that idea of sleep for the dead saints in 1 Thess.4, so he was repeating the idea from our Lord Jesus. But why use that 'asleep' expression for believers that die?

It's about God's promise of eternal life through His Son, for those who believe. Using the asleep idea points away... from the idea of the "second death" for the wicked. It also points away... from the OT idea of the 'dead' that do not rise...

Isa 26:14
14 They are dead, they shall not live; they are deceased (rapha), they shall not rise: therefore hast Thou visited and destroyed them, and made all their memory to perish.
(KJV)

In an Appendix in Bullinger's KJV study Bible (The Companion Bible), he listed the several places where the KJV translators did not bring forth the name Rephaim where it appears in the Hebrew, in which the KJV instead rendered it as "dead" or "deceased'. That "deceased" word is one of those examples. It should say 'Rephaim' instead of "deceased".

It's about those who do not rise, and are destroyed, and their memory perished. Just who would that be? It cannot be any flesh born human like us, for all humans born of woman's womb as we, will... rise from the dead, both the just and the unjust at Christ's return per John 9:28-29.

There's only one specific type of offspring that can apply to, that do not rise, and are already destroyed. It's the offspring of the angels mating with flesh daughters of men per Gen.6, their offspring of the 'giants'. That's who the name Rephaim points to per Old Testament history. The valley of Rephaim was the valley of the giants. Those already are, literally 'dead', gone, never to resurrect. That's actually who the Eccl.9 Scripture is pointing to about the 'dead' that know not anything.

So just as God's Word uses the 'sleep' metaphor for those who believe on Him, to show they are given everlasting life, likewise with the Rephaim that are 'dead', that's in the exact opposite sense. What their being 'dead' represents should never be implied for the just or the unjust which will both resurrect. And that level of 'dead' should never be applied to the saints.

But that's exactly what Satan's servants have done in tricking some believers to think the saints go into that known nothing 'dead' state after death of our flesh body.

John 5:24
24 Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth My word, and believeth on Him That sent Me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.
(KJV)

veteran said:

Plenty of Scripture exists, both from our Lord Jesus and His Apostles, to show that our soul with spirit does not literally sleep in the grave after flesh death. That was one of the specific points Apostle Paul was covering in 2 Cor.5 and 1 Cor.15, and our Lord Jesus in Matt.10:28, and Luke 16.

Click to expand...

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul (life). Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Up to your old tricks Veteran!

"Soul" in the Greek is "psuche" = life, ie, the future life as per John 12:25 or a life hidden with Christ in God Col 3:3,4. Noone Veteran can resist Jesus from granting it John 10:27-29 compare Luk 12:4,5.

Soul can mean many things depending on context, mostly means the mind or innermost feelings, disposition. But NEVER do we see the word immortal in front of it and never is it used in such context or meaning.

Insight

I was using the term "sleep" figurativly to represent a state of dormancy or suspended animation of the soul in between the moments of bodily death and the time and judgement. I certainly did not mean sleep in the way we know it.

All I'm trying to explain is that from a Proestant perspective, the term "CHurch Expectant" is not redundant for there are those who ahve died and are not yet in the Kingdom of God. Sleep is a conveniant word to describe it, not neccessarily a litteral happenning or state of being for the soul..

Templar81 said:

I was using the term "sleep" figurativly to represent a state of dormancy or suspended animation of the soul in between the moments of bodily death and the time and judgement. I certainly did not mean sleep in the way we know it.

All I'm trying to explain is that from a Proestant perspective, the term "CHurch Expectant" is not redundant for there are those who ahve died and are not yet in the Kingdom of God. Sleep is a conveniant word to describe it, not neccessarily a litteral happenning or state of being for the soul..

Click to expand...

In that sense you're right on, for Christ's future Kingdom definitely is still expecting today. But that's still different than why the 'asleep' metaphor is applied to the saints that have died. Death is for the 'dead', those who refuse Christ Jesus. Those will perish with death, Satan, and hell in the "lake of fire". So death has absolutely NO hold upon those who have believed on Christ Jesus as their Saviour. That's why our Lord Jesus said what He did in the John 5:24 verse.

The second death has no power over a believer, but good or bad, Christian or not we are all subject to bodily death, but none of us know exactly what happens between the moment of bodily death and the day of judgement. Sicne God is timeless it may be that the day of judgement is not a set day in the future but is for the individual. I suppose we won't know exactly in this life, no matter how we read and re-read scripture but we'll find out eventually.

My point is that we shouldn't just dismiss the "church expectant" as a medieval Roman Catholic term that has no relevance today because at the end of the day even if there is no purgatory there are always going to be the souls of the departed which are between bodily deathh their final destination.

Lot's of people have near death experiences and some see heaven and some see hell, when they are revived no time has gone on and they ahve only been dead for seconds or a couple of minutes, yet they reached a destination. So from one way of looking at it there might be no such thing as the chruch expectant if people just go to heaven or hell straight after the moment of death.

I've just realised that I have digressed somewhat. I think it might be interesting to ahve a thraed on near death experiences.

Templar81 said:

The second death has no power over a believer, but good or bad, Christian or not we are all subject to bodily death, but none of us know exactly what happens between the moment of bodily death and the day of judgement. Sicne God is timeless it may be that the day of judgement is not a set day in the future but is for the individual. I suppose we won't know exactly in this life, no matter how we read and re-read scripture but we'll find out eventually.

My point is that we shouldn't just dismiss the "church expectant" as a medieval Roman Catholic term that has no relevance today because at the end of the day even if there is no purgatory there are always going to be the souls of the departed which are between bodily deathh their final destination.

Lot's of people have near death experiences and some see heaven and some see hell, when they are revived no time has gone on and they ahve only been dead for seconds or a couple of minutes, yet they reached a destination. So from one way of looking at it there might be no such thing as the chruch expectant if people just go to heaven or hell straight after the moment of death.

I've just realised that I have digressed somewhat. I think it might be interesting to ahve a thraed on near death experiences.

Click to expand...

I really don't hold to those doctrines of men you're pulling from concerning purgatory and the like. It's better to stay with God's Word as written. Since our Lord Jesus told the believing malefactor crucified with Him that he'd be with Him that day in Paradise, that's good enough for me. Like our Lord Jesus also said, God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.