Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
No such thing as an immortal body.
ty for once again demonstrating that there is no “to be absent from the body is to be present with the lord,” Rn, and i hope you understand that all i would ask is when you cult of sol bobbleheads make your sad, uninformed posts, that you qualify them just a little; all you would have to say is “i believeus four and no more will go to some special snowflake place, while everyone else burns” and then see, i got nothing to say, okWell here is one, once again for the record!
2 Corinthians 5:5-8
5 Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit.
King James Version
6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:
7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight
8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord.
Just a question. If Satan is currently bound, how is he still the god of this world per 2 Cor 2:4? If he is still the god of this world, than he is still the prince of the power of air per Paul in Eph 2:2
No such thing as soul sleep. The body when it dies goes into the ground and rots. The soul and spirit are immortal and go home to be with the Lord. Paul used present tense verbs not future verbs so it doesn't matter what commentators on either side of the argument write..
.
Eventually, yes.
However, regarding the unfortunate, erroneous objection that the righteous dead go to heaven immediately at death, and that man, therefore, possesses an immortal spirit, is evident from Paul's statement in 2 Corinthians 5:8:
The passage in its context reads as follows: "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house which is from heaven: if so be that being clothed we shall not be found naked. For we that are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened: not for that we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality might be swallowed up of life. Now he that hath wrought us for the selfsame thing is God, who also hath given unto us the earnest of the Spirit. Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: (for we walk by faith, not by sight) we are confident, I say, and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. Wherefore we labor, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him." 2 Cor. 5:1-9.
Paul here deals with three possible states:
1. "Our earthly house." "At home in the body." "Absent from the Lord." This house can be "dissolved." "In this we groan."
2. "Unclothed." "Naked."
3. "A building of God." "House not made with hands, eternal in the heavens.....Our house which is from heaven." "Clothed upon." "Present with the Lord." "Absent from the body."
If the "earthly house" means our present, mortal body, as all agree, then unless there is clear proof to the contrary, it would logically follow that our heavenly house is the immortal body.
And thus by a process of elimination, the "unclothed," "naked" state can mean none other than that state of dissolution known as death. We are assured of the desired third state because we have "the earnest [pledge] of the Spirit." Verse 5. But how will God's Spirit finally ensure our reaching this desired state? Paul answers, "If the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." Rom. 8: 11.
Dr. H. C. G. Moule well says:"That same Spirit, who, by uniting us to Christ, made actual our redemption, shall surely, in ways to us unknown, carry the process to its glorious crown, and be somehow the Efficient Cause of 'the redemption of our body."'-The Expositor's Bible, comment on Romans 8: 11.
Now, if the fulfilling to us of that pledge of the Spirit is the change that takes place in our "mortal bodies" at the resurrection, then we must conclude that the change to the third state, that of being "clothed upon" with the heavenly house, comes at the resurrection, and is the change in our bodies from mortal to immortal.
Paul declares further: "We know that the whole creation groans and travails in pain together until now. And not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." Rom. 8:22, 23.
That he is here dealing with the same problem as in 2 Corinthians 5 is evident:
Romans 8:22, 23
"Groan within ourselves."
"First fruits of the Spirit."
"Waiting for."
"Redemption of our body."
2 Corinthians 5:1-8
"We groan."
"Earnest of the Spirit."
"Earnestly desiring."
"Clothed upon" with heavenly house.
Thus we conclude again that the change from the "earthly house" to the "house which is from heaven" is an event that involves the "redemption of our body," which "redemption," all agree, occurs at the resurrection day. (See also Phil. 3:20,2 1.)
The apostle states that he longs to be "clothed upon" with the heavenly house, "that mortality might be swallowed up of life," or, as the American Revised Version states it, "that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life." 2 Cor. 5:4. In other words, "what is mortal" loses its mortality by this change.
According to the immortal-soul doctrine, "what is mortal" is the body only, which at death dissolves in the grave; but the soul simply continues on in its immortal state, freed from the mortal body. But Paul longs to be "clothed" with the heavenly house, "that what is mortal may be swallowed up of life." Thus by their own tenets, the immortal-soul advocates must agree that Paul in this passage is not dealing with an experience that takes place at death.
In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul declared, "We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed." When? "At the last trump." And what will take place? "The dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed." And what will result from this? "When this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory." 1 Cor. 15:51-54.
This last phrase parallels the language in 2 Corinthians 5: "What is mortal [or subject to death] may be swallowed up of life." The swallowing up of death, or mortality, is still a future event.
That Paul expected to be "clothed upon" with the heavenly house at the resurrection day is the certain conclusion from all his statements. Being "present with the Lord" is contingent upon being "clothed" with the heavenly house. Therefore the being "present with the Lord" awaits the resurrection day. How beautifully this agrees with the apostle's statement to the Thessalonians, that at the resurrection we are caught up "to meet the Lord... and so shall we ever be with the Lord." 1 Thess. 4:17.
If it seems strange to some that Paul should speak of putting off one "house" and putting on another when he meant simply the change in his body from mortal to immortal. We would remind them that he uses a similar figure of speech when describing the change that takes place in the heart at conversion. He declares that we should "put off... the old man," and "put on the new man." (Eph. 4:22-24)
The fact that Paul coupled together the being freed from the earthly house and the being clothed upon with the heavenly does not prove that he expected an immediate transfer from one to the other. He makes specific reference to an "unclothed," a "naked," state.
Well might Paul "groan" for the day when he could put off this mortal body, with all the evils suggested by it, and could put on, be "clothed upon" with, the promised immortal body. In which body he would be ready "to meet" and to "ever be with the Lord."
In light of the foregoing, we need not spend much time on 2 Peter 1: 14, which is also mentioned by true-death objectors. The passage in its context reads as follows: "Yes, I think it meet, as long as I am in this tabernacle, to stir you up by putting you in remembrance; knowing that shortly I must put off this my tabernacle, even as our Lord Jesus Christ bath showed me. Moreover I will endeavor that you may be able after my decease to have these things always in remembrance." 2 Peter 1:13-15.
The reasoning of the immortal-soul advocate here runs about as follows:
Peter said that he dwelt in a tabernacle, and that "I must put off this my tabernacle." Therefore, this proves that Peter had an immortal soul, indicated by the "I" and "my," and that he, looking at his body, his tabernacle, thought of it as something apart from himself.
We are all agreed that Peter refers to his death when he speaks of putting "off this tabernacle."
Christ spoke to him as to his death: "When thou was young, thou girded thyself, and walked whither thou would: but when thou shall be old, thou shall stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee whither thou would not. This spoke he, signifying by what death he [Peter] should glorify God." John 21:18,19.
Notice that here Christ does not make a distinction between Peter and his "tabernacle," as though they were two, and separate. And John, in recording this forecast of Peter's martyrdom, speaks of the "death he should die." Not Peter's "tabernacle" dying, but "he" dying.
This agrees with Peter's own words: "After my decease." We agree with the objector that the "I" and the "my" of verse 14 refer to Peter. But is it not equally evident that the "my" of verse 15 also refers to Peter? Yes. But in this verse Peter says, "My decease." When Peter is allowed to speak for himself, the apparent case for the immortal-soul doctrine disappears as immortal entities do not suffer decease.
The objection also echoes that of the original adversary of souls in the Garden of Eden:
"Ye shall not surely die..." (Genesis 3:4)
The a
X
.
.
Wrong again . Paul in 2 cor. proved that wrong and so also the souls under the altar in rev. and also the church in heaven before Jesus returns to earth in REv. 20. The body is dead but Man does not cease to exist at death. He either goes to heaven or the place of torments to await being cast into the lake of fire.
Amills conflate the defeat of Satan at the Cross with the binding of Satan at the 2nd Coming. There's no nice way to say it.
Thanks Randy!
You bring up some good points, some of which I wholeheartedly agree. The question of Satan's status is something I've long wondered about, but am not completely sure. One thing I am sure of is that Satan is not presently bound. He is the prince of the power of the air, and the roaring lion, as you suggest.
Read What Is In "Bold Blue" Real Slow, And If You Don't Understand My "Very Clear" Explanation We Will Go From There
Many Amills who claim that Satan is presently bound indicate that the *Cross* is what bound him. And if indeed he was bound at that point, then the nations would no longer be deceived at present, right?
I don't subscribe to "reformed" preterist eschatology in 70AD fulfillment and many other aspects of their (theology/eschatology), yes we both agree on the Ahmil position, one thing in common
Paul expressed the hope that “Christ shall be magnified in my body, whether it be by life, or by death.” Paul tied life and death to a physical body, not some soul or spirit. The alternatives that drew him were either “to live” or “to die.” He was “in a strait” between these two. If he lived, Christ would be magnified, and if he died a martyr’s death, the cause of Christ would be magnified. It would be “gain” either way, both for him and for Christ.
Yes, Luke 10:18 happened long ago, at Satan's original rebellion in the old world, at some time prior to Adam and Eve. Lord Jesus was there, even from the beginning (Hebrews).
I certainly wasn't suggesting that Rev 12 had anything to do with Satan's original rebellion! I've thought it's one of two possibilities: it's either Satan's defeat at the Cross, or it's Satan's rage in the endtimes as he operates through the Antichrist.
I don't know that to be true, but it's an interesting idea.
I'm not personally sure that Jesus was here referring to Satan? He may have been referring to the Roman ruler? Pontius Pilate could find nothing to accuse Jesus with.
Belief in Antichrist is not a "false doctrine." It is a belief based on the Bible, with genuine evidence. It is based on the Little Horn of Dan 7, and Paul identifies him as a "man of sin."
Ok, I read the bolded blue text. You suggest he can deceive people, just not nations to battle. If I disregard everything and only focus on your suggestion:
