from death to life - afterlife teaching • life • death • resurrection • eternal destiny june...

www.afterlife.co.nz1

The Official Magazine of the ConditionalImmortality Association of New Zealand

Bible Teaching • Life • Death • Resurrection • Eternal Destiny

June 2007(Conference Edition)

From DeathTo Life

Athanasius, Atonement And Annihilation

www.afterlife.co.nz 2

Editorial ContentsIssue 34 June 2007

Editorial 2David Burge

Twisted Scripture 3David Burge

Near Death Experiences(NDEs) (Part Two) 7Armand Newrick

Resurrection Revealed(Part Two) 11Beryl Ching

Athanasius & Annihilation(Part 1) 15 Glenn Peoples

Creation & Anthropology (Part 2) 20Eric Gunby

Faith of Our FathersDavid Burge 24

Info / Adverts

Resurrection Publishing 23ACMissions 28

Editor: David Burge:[email protected]

THANKS HEAPS!We had another fine Conference

and dinner at the BarrycourtConference Centre. We had agood number there and visitorsfrom as far afield as Australia.Glenn Peoples spoke to us. Hisaddress, Athanasius, Atonementand Annihilation, is found in thisissue of our magazine.

At Conference I had opportunityto thank those that were therefor their support over the year. Iwant to thank you, the reader,too! Your support means that ourministry continues to grow yearafter year. More people are ableto see the gospel as the offer ofLIFE ONLY IN CHRIST - and tofree their conscience from theterrible burden of having tobelieve the traditional teaching of“eternal torment” - David Burge.


Twisted

Scripture

The UnquenchableFire

John the Baptist and Jesusspeak of an “unquenchablefire” (e.g., Matt. 3:12; Mark9:43). This is the judgmentof God upon unrepentantsinners. That God has set aday when he willjudge the world withjustice by JesusChrist is undeniable(Acts 17:31). What isat issue, however, isthe nature of thatjudgment.

There are many whowould argue that an“unquenchable fire”must be one that willnever go out andthat, as aconsequence, thefate of the lost is tobe thrown into thatunquenchable firewhere they will betormented foreverand ever - literallywithout end.

Old TestamentExamples

The best way to find outwhat a particular Biblicalphrase means is to compareScripture with Scripture.

There are several passages inthe Old Testament that speak ofan “unquenchable fire”. None ofthem are capable of bearing theweight of the meaning that iscommonly put upon this phrase.

King Josiah was told that theLord’s anger would burn like a

fire against Judah and not bequenched (2 Kings 22:17). Thethreatened destructions ofEdom (Isa. 34:10), of Judah,and of Jerusalem (Jer. 7:20 cf.17:27; Ezk. 20:47-48) are allsaid to be by an “unquenchablefire.”


These latter instances clearlyrefer to the destruction of Judahand Jerusalem at the hands ofthe Babylonians. The“unquenchable fires” whichconsumed Judah wereunstoppable, but they were notunending. These “fires” are notstill burning in Israel.

If we compare Scripture withScripture we will be led toconclude that in many instances“fire” is but ametaphor, animage for theanger of God. Ifand when thefire is a literalfire the picture isone of a fire thatcontinueswithoutinterruption orinterference untilit burns out. Itdoes howeveralwayseventually burn out.

Old Testament OriginsThe language that Jesus uses

in speaking of the unquenchablefire is drawn directly from theOld Testament. From Isaiah66:24, to be precise.

· Isa. 66:24 speaks of “bodies”not of disembodied souls. From

where do they get theirauthority to read into this textthe notion that it is sayinganything at all about the fate oflost disembodied “souls”?

· Isa. 66:24 says clearly thatthese rebels are “dead”. Fromwhere do they get theirauthority to read into the textthe notion of eternal conscioustorment? Again, let me state itclearly: The picture is one of

dead bodies, not oftormented souls.

· The “worms”and “fire” no doubtdo what worms andfire do in anyrubbish heap. Theyconsume that whichis thrown onto theheap.

The picture is notone of a cosmictorture chamber butof an incinerator in

which all that is loathsome andwicked is thrown in order that itmight be finally and totallydestroyed.

The “Eternal Fire”Jesus also speaks of an

“eternal fire” (Mat. 25:41), butagain, when we compareScripture with Scripture, a verydifferent picture emerges from


that which is often presented asthe clear teaching of the Bible.

According to Jude 7, “they”,that is, Sodom and Gomorrah,actually underwent thepunishment of “eternal fire”. TheNRSV more accuratelyrepresents the Greek here thandoes the NIV! They “serve as anexample by undergoing a

punishment of eternal fire”.Surely the purpose of the firethat fell upon Sodom andGomorrah was to destroy themnot to torment them.Furthermore, that “eternal fire”is not still burning today!

In fact 2 Pet. 2:6 tells us thatthe people of Sodom andGomorrah were burnt to ashesand that in this God made of

them “an example of what isgoing to happen to theungodly.” What then is going tohappen to the ungodly. Willtheir conscious souls betormented for eternity? Not atall! They will be burnt to ashes.

Surely, if the fire that destroyedSodom and Gomorrah was an“eternal fire”, though having

completed its destructive work ithas gone out, and if the fire ofGehenna is described in thesewords, as an “eternal fire”, wehave every right to concludethat Gehenna too will burn for atime until the wicked are nomore - and perhaps until the oldearth itself is destroyed, and goout when heaven and earth aremade new (2Pet. 3:10, Rev.21:1; etc.).


An “Eternal Punishment”One question remains. What

then does Jesus mean when hespeaks of an “eternalpunishment”? (Mat. 25:46).

The New Testament uses theword “eternal” in connectionwith all of the following:

Judgment … Heb. 6:2

Sin …Mark 3:29

Salvation …Heb. 5:9

Redemption …Heb. 9:12

Destruction …2Thess. 1:9

Punishment …Mat. 25:46

An eternaljudgement isnot an eternalprocess ofjudging but aonce for all judgment the effectof which goes on for eternity. Aneternal sin is not an eternalprocess of going on sinning buta once for all sin the effect ofwhich goes on for eternity. Aneternal salvation is not aneternal process of saving but aonce for all salvation the effectof which goes on for eternity.Likewise, an eternal redemption

is not an eternal process ofgoing on redeeming but a oncefor all redemption the effect ofwhich goes on for eternity.

Given all that we have alreadyseen it stands to reason that aneternal destruction is not aneternal process of destroying,which goes on for ever withoutend. Rather, it is a once for all

destruction, theeffect of whichwill be eternal.Ultimately, aneternalpunishment isnot an eternalprocess ofpunishing thewicked but aonce for allpunishment theeffect of whichis eternal.

ConclusionThat a fire is

“unquenchable” does not entailits burning for all eternity. It is afire that cannot be PUT out. Butit does not follow that it is a firethat will never GO out. In fact,Scripture tells us exactly that.When the fire of Gehenna hasaccomplished its destroyingwork it will go out.


Near Death Experiences(NDEs)

PART TWOOUR RESURRECTION HOPE

I do not doubt the reality ofwhat individuals experience in thenear death state. My mother hadan out of body experience whilepregnant with myolder brother inAustralia (1960). TheApostle Paul (2Cor.12:1-10) boasts of aman who had anexperience, whether inthe body or not, hedid not know. Paul,however, would ratherboast of his sufferingsas he lived out hishope in theresurrection from thedead!

My mother was notdead. The man Paulspoke of was notdead. God gave ‘outof body’ visions toothers in the Bible also - none ofthem were dead. This experienceis not evidence for a disembodiedexistence in the afterlife. Paulwanted only to “be like Christ inhis death and so, somehow toattain to the resurrection fromthe dead.’ (Phil. 3:10-11).

Thus while I in no way questionthe reality of the experience, I doask whether Christians who fail toput Bible truth ahead of theseexperiences are opening themselves up to being led astray. The

belief in a disembodiedafterlife for all actuallyundermines theexclusive claims ofJesus Christ to be theresurrection and thelife, our lost world’sonly hope for life andimmortality.

DID JESUS HAVEAN NDE?

In 1992 Roger B.Cook, lecturer at theOpen University, Milton,Keynes, England,produced an article inthe Journal of NearDeath Experienceswhich claimed that

Jesus’ time between his crucifixionand resurrection was nothing morethan a type of NDE. He claimedthat Jesus entered into a comafrom which Joseph of Arimathearevived him. Thereafter (accordingto Cook) Jesus was convinced hehad been resurrected from thedead when he had only revived.1

The Devil’s lie hasThe Devil’s lie hasThe Devil’s lie hasThe Devil’s lie hasThe Devil’s lie hasfound universalfound universalfound universalfound universalfound universal

acceptance across allacceptance across allacceptance across allacceptance across allacceptance across allcultures even amongstcultures even amongstcultures even amongstcultures even amongstcultures even amongst

evangelicals.evangelicals.evangelicals.evangelicals.evangelicals.


This appears to be the tailwagging the dog. Was Jesusreally subject to some universallaw of surviving bodily deathfrom which he was revived orreunited with his corpse? Or isCook allowing himself to bedriven by a spirit determined toperpetuate the original lie to Eve(“You will not die” Gen. 3:4)through the medium of the NDE.

NO REMEDY FORDEATH OUTSIDE

OF CHRISTWhen God told our

first parents theywould ‘surely die’ ifthey took theforbidden fruit (Gen.2:17), he meantthat they wouldreturn to the dustfrom which theywere taken(Gen.3:19).

God was not threatening (asmany claim) a “spiritual death”as opposed to physical death. Hewas warning of the total deathof the whole person. There is noremedy accessible to humanityfor the death state now thatEden has been closed and we nolonger have access to the tree oflife that grew there (Gen. 3:24).

When we exchange total death(as understood in the Bible), for“out of body” life, the Gospel

message is stripped of its power!The Gospel’s challenge to diversereligious and philosophical systemswhich promote natural, or innateimmortality is rendered ineffective.We can no longer cogentlyconvince mankind of Jesus Christ’sexclusive claim to be the doorwayinto the life to come.2

Who needs Jesus and theresurrection from the dead if ‘out

of body life’ is theuniversal inherentright of every humanbeing? Manyevangelicals areunaware of the factthat their theology ofinnate immortalityreduces Jesus Christto nothing more thanan alternative meansof securing a betterafterlife. At least thisis how it would seem

in the ears of a Hindu, forinstance.

Sadly, Christian writers who allowthe NDE to inform their theologyof Christian hope are shooting theChurch in the foot! When it comesto fulfilling the great commission(Matt. 28: 18-20), death mustmean death if Jesus Christ’sresurrection from the dead is to beseen to have any value. OtherwiseJesus is just another option for theafterlife!

Contact with the deadContact with the deadContact with the deadContact with the deadContact with the deadis forbidden in theis forbidden in theis forbidden in theis forbidden in theis forbidden in the

Scriptures.Scriptures.Scriptures.Scriptures.Scriptures.


WHAT OF THE NDE?When brain waves appear to

cease, breathing stops, bodytemperature drops, and thedesperate involuntary mechanismsfor survival kick in.

New Zealand apologist, creationscientist Jonathan Sarfati, who hasa PhD in chemistry, gives aninteresting explanation for the‘tunnel of light’ sensation. Heclaims that as the body transitionsinto death, theperipheral visionnarrows resultingin a sharpconcentration oflight beingbeamed onto thebrain, thus the‘tunnel’ effect.3

How about thefeelings ofpainlessness andpeace associatedwith an NDE?

A bodythreatened withintense pain produces chemicalscalled opiods which stimulatespecial receptor molecules locatedon neurons in the brain. Thisallows the body to desensitize tothe pain and carry on with normalbehaviour. 4 An example of thismay be a soldier who continues tofight unaware that his leg hasbeen nearly severed by a bomb

blast. These chemical reactions inthe brain, in the Near Death state,result in sensations of peace andpainlessness.

Rational explanations can beoffered for some sensationsrelated to NDE’s. It cannot beexplained how subjects in thisstate see deceased loved oneswho give them information whichproves to be impossible for themto have known prior to the event.

Anyone withsome knowledgeof the paranormalmay make aconnectionbetween this andwhat happenswhen psychicschannel ormediate on behalfof the dead, apracticecondemned in thescriptures(Deut.18:10-11).Although NDE

subjects do not voluntarily seekafter the dead, the experienceappears to fall into this category.Perhaps these encounters make usmore susceptible to demonicinfluence, ‘For Satan himself canmasquerade as an angel of light’2Cor. 11:14. Demonic spirits doimpersonate human beings, withdisastrous outcomes (1 Sam.Chapters 28 & 31).


Why wouldn’t the Devil be activein the Near Death state?

CONCLUSIONThe NDE, as “proof” of a

conscious intermediate state,stands in stark contrast to whatthe Bible teaches on humananthropology and the state of thedead. It can be difficult to conveythis fact to well meaning Christianswho believe in such anintermediate state with littlebiblical support!

Dr. R.J.Bauckham lectures on thehistory of Christian thought at theUniversity of Manchester. Hewrites: ‘The NT hope for theChristian dead is concentrated ontheir participation in theresurrection (1Thes. 4:13-18) andthere is therefore little evidence ofbelief about the ‘intermediatestate’.’ Bauckham makes referenceto only six passages usually putforward in support of thetraditional view of theintermediate state.5

One cannot help but wonder if theenemy seizes upon the opportunityprovided by NDE’s to promote thelie that will keep a lost world fromrealizing the absolute necessity offaith in Jesus Christ, for salvation,by resurrection!(Footnotes)1 http://www.springerlink.com/

content/v9552637537322lk/

2 God ’s Spirit is active in theconversion process. No one comes toJesus Christ unless God first drawsthem (Jn. 6:44). However, faith comesby hearing, and the message is heardthrough the word of Christ (Rom.10:17) implying the necessity for bothintelligent communication andreception of the Gospel.

3 http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4327.asp

4 Neil R. Carson, William Buskist, G.Neil Martin

Psychology: The Science of Behaviour

(Allyn & Bacon: Edinburgh Gate,Harlow, Essex, England, 1997) p. 108.

5 org. ed. J. D.Douglas

New BibleDictionary 2nd.Ed.

(Leicester,England: IVP,1982) p. 346.

The AuthorArmand is a

member ofManukau Central Baptist churchand a recent graduate from CareyBaptist College with a degree inapplied theology. He has had akeen interest in theology since histeenage conversion (See Issue 30)and came to the conditionalistposition about eight years into hiswalk with the Lord. He is marriedto Suzanne and they have twochildren Daniel and Emma.


Resurrection Revealed IIRESURRECTION IN THE

PENTATEUCHGeneral Resurrection

God made promises toAbraham that have yet to befulfilled. They can only befulfilled by hisresurrection.

In Genesis17:8, GodpromisesAbraham thathe will give theland toAbraham andto his seedafter him, asan everlastingpossession.This promisehas not beenfulfilled up tonow, and itcannot befulfilled by anytemporarypossession. Derek Prince says,“Its fulfillment demands acomplete and permanentpossession of the whole land ...The only part of the land thatAbraham himself has hithertoreceived for permanentpossession is just space enough

in which to be buried ... Thus,this promise of God cannot befulfilled apart from theresurrection.”7

Though there is not a greatdeal about resurrection in thePentateuch, there are

indications thatbelievers inJehovah didbelieve in aresurrection.

The narrativein Genesis 22regardingAbraham’ssacrifice ofIsaac does notmentionresurrection,but thecommentary onthis event inHebrews 11:17-19 shows thatAbraham, atleast, believed

God could raise the dead.Abraham not only believedIsaac could be resurrected, butalso that he would beresurrected. His instructions tohis servants at the time confirmthis belief. He said to them, “...Iand the lad will go yonder and


worship, and come again toyou” (Gen.22:5). As hisintention to offer Isaac as asacrifice was sincere, hebelieved that after the sacrificeGod would raise the lad fromthe dead, and they would bothreturn to meet up with theservants.

We learn from Hebrews chapter11 that Abraham looked forwardhimself toinheriting a city“whose builderand maker isGod” (v. 11).This he couldonly haveanticipated ifhe had faith ina resurrection.It was not onlyAbraham, butIsaac andJacob and theiroffspring who“died in faith,not having received thepromises, but having seen themafar off, and were persuaded ofthem, and embraced them, andconfessed that they werestrangers and pilgrims on theearth ... they desire[d] a bettercountry, that is, a heavenly one.”They had the faith that God had“prepared for them a city.”(Heb. 11:13, 16). Knowing this,

we cannot deny that the earlypatriarchs had knowledge of,and belief in, resurrection.

George Williams sees Christ inHis death and resurrection inthe whole chapter of Genesis22, and even considers the“third day” in v. 4 as pointing tothe resurrection of Christ.8

A more doubtful reference isGenesis 25:8whereAbraham issaid to die andbe “gathered tohis people”.Some think thisrefers to theafterlife.9 I aminclined tothink that itrefers to thegrave, orgravedom, andbeing gatheredto those whohave already

died and been buried. Abrahamdid not believe in an immediatefulfillment of the promises, butas Heb. 11:40 says, “that theywithout us should not be madeperfect.”

Commenting on Genesis 26,George Williams writes, “Thepromise of v. 3 of the land toIsaac personally, as in the case


of each Patriarch, involvesresurrection.”10 Dake also says,“This implies resurrection, for hedid not inherit a foot of landduring his life-time.”11

Regarding Joseph, Norman H.Camp writes, “Joseph believed ina future life and in theresurrection of his body.” InGenesis 50:24-26 he took an oathof the children of Israel that theywould take his bones back toCanaan from Egypt. Threehundred years afterwards whenMoses led the children of Israelout of Egypt they took theembalmed body (or the bones) ofJoseph with them (Exodus 13:19),and buried it in Shechem (Joshua24:32). Says Norman H. Camp,“...he believed in its [the body’s]resurrection and the futurekingdom of God on earth, whenhe should live again ... Surely thefaith of Joseph will be honored byGod, and some day his bones willbe raised out of that lonely, butnot forgotten grave in Shechem.”12

Hebrews 11:22 draws ourattention to the fact that thestipulation of Joseph to take hisbones with them, was because ofhis faith.

The Lord Jesus Christ explainsthat in Exodus 3:6, when Godrefers to Himself saying, “I am theGod of Abraham, the God ofIsaac, and the God of Jacob”, He

was talking about the fact thatthese men would beresurrected, and therefore Hecan say that He is their God, inthe present tense. (See thediscussion under “Resurrectionin the Gospels” on Matthew 22,Mark 12, and Luke 20).

F.C.Payne sees circumcision onthe eighth day as a type ofresurrection. The number eight,he says, is the number ofresurrection, or of newbeginning. Every male child wascircumcised on the eighth dayinto God’s covenant - a newbeginning. (Lev. 12:2,3). Thisrite, of course, began inAbraham’s day, at the expressinstruction of God (Gen. 17:10-12). Payne reinforces hisinterpretation of the numbereight by pointing out that Davidwas the eighth son of Jesse,and “David was a type of Christ,Who is the Resurrection andthe Life.” (Emphasis isPayne’s.)13 In Deuteronomy31:16, Moses is told by God ,“thou shalt sleep with thyfathers.” The Lord goes on totell Moses that after he sleeps,the Israelites will go intoidolatry, leaving us with nodoubt that He means, “After youdie...”. But sleep infers anawakening. This is the firstreference to death as a sleep.


Resurrection of ChristIn Lewis Sperry Chafer’s

discussion on types, he includesAaron’s rod that budded (Nu.17:1-10) as a type of Christ’sresurrection. He refers to Heb.9:4 as the New Testamentreference, and since Hebrews 9is a listing of the tabernacle andits furniture, and refers to thisas a “figure” (K.J.V) or“illustration” (N.I.V.) (v. 9), andwe know that the tabernacleand its furnishings are types ofChrist, this seems a likelyinterpretation.14 Also, theAaronic priesthood itself was atype of Christ’s priesthood - it“reveals Christ in His humanityand His priestly work.”15

Footnotes7 Derek Prince, Resurrection ofthe Dead, p.41.8. Geo. Williams. Student’sCommentary on the HolyScripture.9. Chuck Missler, Radioprogramme.10. Geo.Williams. See above.11. Dake’s Annotated ReferenceBible.12. Norman H.Camp. TheResurrection of the HumanBody, p.8,9.

The author, Beryl Joy Ching,spent over 40 years on themission field in India. HerConference Address, “Hinduismand Conditional Immortality” (Iss.5, p2) reflects on the relevance ofConditional Immortality truth in amission context.After returning to New Zealand to

“retire”, Beryl was for a long timesecretary of this Association. Shehas also been doing further study.RESURRECTION AS REVEALED INTHE OLD TESTAMENT ANDCONFIRMED IN THE NEWTESTAMENT is the full title of herThesis presented to the Faculty ofthe Freelandia Institute BiblicalTheologicalCollege inpartialfulfilmentof therequirementsfor theDegreeMaster ofBiblicalStudies.

13. F. C. Payne. The Seal ofGod, p.113.14. Chafer Vol. 1, p.220 (under“others”)15. Chafer Vol. 1, p.217

About The Author


ATHANASIUS, ATONEMENT ANDANNIHILATIONISM (PART 1)

Glenn PeoplesAthanasius sets out his work on

the incarnation in several thematicsections. He starts out talkingabout the state of humanity asGod created it. He then moves onto talking about what happenedas a result of the fall, and thenabout why and how God remediedthis situation.He then moveson toapologeticalarguments,defending thefact that Goddid makeatonement inChrist againstsome scepticalobjections.There is really aseries of talkslurking in thosesubjects thatcould be put to very good use asan explanation of the Christianfaith, but I’m going to pick outjust one thread that runs throughthem: Jesus died for sinners.

On the face of it, it sounds toosimple. Why do I need to tell youthis? Why, especially, do I need toquote the long dead fourthcentury Bishop of Alexandria to

tell you this? The reason is here:What people say hasimplications, whether theyappreciate those implications ornot. When a person says, “Jesusdied for me,” this confession offaith has consequences whetherthe confessor sees what thoseconsequences are or not. I’m

drawing onAthanasius herebecause heexplained somuch of thecontent of whyJesus came andwhat his deathachieved thatthoseconsequencesbegin to appearon the horizon ina way that isappreciated byfew

contemporary evangelicals,Catholics or Orthodox.Athanasius gave Christianity –Catholic Christianity for thatmatter, very good theologicalreasons to doubt what so muchof it affirmed – and still affirms– about human nature, thedeath of Jesus, and theconsequences of sin.


Humanity As GodIntended

Athanasius begins his talk onthe incarnation by talking abouthumanity, since it was humanitythat God would become in theincarnation. He begins wherehumanity begins, in Genesis.Since in this talk my maininterest in Athanasius is whathis views imply about humandestiny, my main interest inwhat he says about the creationof humanity isin what he saysabout humanimmortality, orlack thereof.God made manycreatures,including humanbeings.Compared tothe othercreatures,“Man,”Athanasiuswrote, was“created above the rest, butincapable of independentperseverance” (from theheading of chapter 3).

Athanasius explains that Godgave mankind a gift, creatinghim in God’s image and “givingthem a portion even of thepower of His own Word; so thathaving as it were a kind of

reflexion of the Word, and beingmade rational, they might be ableto abide ever in blessedness,living the true life which belongsto the saints in paradise” (3:3).

In Athanasius’ vocabulary, beingperfectly human, as humanity wascreated, was to reflect the imageof the true Word, that is, Jesus,who would be the perfect man. Aslong as humanity maintained thereflection of that perfection, theywould live forever in blessedness,because God would continue to

give them life.From time to timewe heartheologiansoffering views onwhether or not,before the fall,humanity isdepicted inScripture asimmortal, with thepotential to losethat immortality,or mortal, with the

possibility of gaining immortality ifthey passed the test that God setbefore them. Rather thanspeaking about humanity as beingeither mortal or immortal,Athanasius presents humanity asbeing contingent or dependent onthe reflection of the image of God.Notice – it is not that humanity’simmortality was contingent onmaintaining this reflection


(although this is true as a matterof consequence). Humanity itselfis contingent on this fact. Thisbecomes all the more clear whenAthanasius moves on to talkabout the fall of humanity, notingthere that humanity does notmerely lose immortality, but itloses humanity itself.

The Fall and DeathAthanasius narrates for us the

now familiar story of the fall ofhumanity. What exactly did Godwarn Adam about?

“He brought them into His owngarden, and gave them a law: sothat, if they kept the grace andremained good, they might stillkeep the life in paradise withoutsorrow or pain or care besideshaving the promise ofincorruption in heaven; but that ifthey transgressed and turnedback, and became evil, theymight know that they wereincurring that corruption in deathwhich was theirs by nature: nolonger to live in paradise, but castout of it from that time forth todie and to abide in death and incorruption” (3:4).

Death was ours by nature,Athanasius wrote. Humanity wascreated capable of dying, havinga nature that could not endureforever, able to pursueincorruption by keeping the law

that God set before them, butalso able to “turn back” to theonly thing that their ownresources could ultimately givethem: nothing: Death andcorruption, whence they came.Reflecting on God’s sentenceupon Adam, “You shall surelydie,” or more literally, “dying youshall die,” Athanasius again talksabout man never escaping thestate he was in, but abiding in it:

But by ‘dying ye shall die,’ whatelse could be meant than notdying merely, but also abidingforever in the corruption ofdeath” (3:5)?

I’m fairly confident that fromtime to time you’ve heardpastors or theologianscommenting on God’s sentence“you shall surely die.” In alllikelihood, you will have heardpeople talking about what Adamdid not drop dead on that veryday, and the answer is oftengiven that Adam entered into astate of spiritual death on thatvery day. For this reason, we aresometimes told, verses likeRomans 3:23, “the wages of sinis death,” refer to something farmore dreadful than mere dying,but rather to separation – andultimately eternal separation –from God.

In reply to this outlook, I offerthe following antidote from


Athanasius, in what he said nextabout the consequences of thefall:

For transgression of thecommandment was turningthem back to their natural state,so that just as they have hadtheir being out of nothing, soalso, as might be expected, theymight look for corruption intonothing in the course of time.For if, out of a former normalstate of nonexistence, they werecalled into being by thePresence and loving-kindness ofthe Word, it followed naturallythat when men were bereft ofthe knowledge of God and wereturned back to what was not(for what is evil is not, but whatis good is), they should, sincethey derive their being from Godwho IS, be everlastingly berefteven of being; in other words,that they should bedisintegrated and abide in deathand corruption (4:4-5).

Whether Athanasius himselfcountenanced the thought ofsuch a thing as “spiritual death.”He will have none of it here inhis work of the incarnation.Athanasius closes the door toany such interpretation of hisown comments about death. Wehave already seen his claim thatwhen death came through sin,

human beings began, not to entera new state of perpetualaccursedness and misery(although there is no doubt thatthe state into which humanityentered was accursed andmiserable), but to actually “turnback” into their natural state, thatis, to return to a former state.That state is a state of “what isnot,” wherein people“disintegrate” and “abide in deathand corruption.” They lose notmerely happiness, orembodiment, but they become“bereft of being” itself. Let’s put itbluntly – they eventually cease toexist.

In the contemporary world ofpopular evangelical theology,Athanasius is already in serioustrouble. In fact, given Athanasius’own view of human nature, he is,in my view, in considerabletension with himself. Thesestatements about the fall appearto be crystal clear. God createdhumanity out of nothing. God isthe source of their being, andwhen humanity rejects God, itloses its very being. The reasoningis simple and uncontrived. But inan unrelated work Against theHeathen, Athanasius’ concern is tolay out the Church’s teaching onthe soul. There he claims quitedogmatically that “The soul isimmortal.” He seeks to prove this


claim by telling the reader thatthe soul is distinct from thebody, that the soul is thesource of the body’s motion,and that the soul goes beyondthe body in imagination andthought. Therefore, so we aresupposed to conclude, it isimmortal.1 Of course, one whois not already some sort ofdualist, favourably disposed tothe idea of soul’s immortality, isunlikely to grant that thesethree claims are true at all –not at least if Athanasius meantwhat most dualists of his timemeant when they use the word“soul.”

There is a parallel betweenAthanasius’ argument here andhis argument in theIncarnation. In the incarnation,he argues in effect that God isseparate from creation, He isthe source of creations vitalityor movement, and that Godsurpasses creation in creativepower. Therefore when creation– us – separates itself fromGod, it dies. When discussingthe immortality of the soul,then, he treats the soul likeGod and the body like creation.He believed, of course, that thesoul was part of creation. Thisshould have given him pause,calling to mind his argumentfrom the Incarnation, and

holding back from his tenaciousargument for the soul’simmortality. I have no interestin trying to solve the problemfor Athanasius, or holding himup as a paradigm ofconsistency. If there is a lessonhere, it is that we are on muchsurer footing when we spell outhe bug obvious truths of theGospel of Christ than we arewhen we are trying to defend acomplicated framework oftheology because it is what theChurch teaches.

(Part two next issue)

Glenn Peoples is 31 years old.He lives in Dunedin, NewZealand, with his wife Ruth,and their four children. He wasour keynote speaker atConference this year. ReadGlenn's story in Issue 33 (pp.8-10) of this magazine.


Creation And Anthropology IIIn this second article Richard

Eric Gunby continues hisdiscussion of the first of fourinterlocking themes that he saysmakes up The Lost BiblicalParadigm. He seeks, “To establishand convey the Hebraic-holisticview andunderstanding ofman as a livingsoul.”

THE BREATHOF LIFE

Nowhere does theBible teach thatwe have somepreexisting,immaterial, “soul”that is insertedinto or fashionedwithin our body ofdust (See Part 1,Issue 33). Neitheris the breath of life– mentioned inGenesis 2:7 -some immaterial separable spiritthat is “the real you.” The breathof life is in fact the impersonallife force, or life-energy, or thelife-principle itself.

Dr. Basil F.C. Atkinson, alinguistic expert, who was under-librarian of Cambridge UniversityLibrary, commented on Genesis

2:7 as follows: “It hassometimes been thought thatthe impartation of the lifeprinciple, as it is brought beforeus in this verse, entailedimmortality of the spirit or soul.It has been said that to bemade in the image of God

involvesimmortality. TheBible never saysso. If it involvesimmortality, whydoes it not alsoinvolveomniscience oromnipresence, orany other qualityor attribute of theInfinite? Whyshould one alonebe singled out?The breath of lifewas not breathedinto man’s heart,but into hisnostrils. It

involved physical life.Throughout the Bible man,apart from Christ, is conceivedof as made of dust and ashes, aphysical creature, to whom islent by God a principle of life.The Greek thinkers tended tothink of man as an immortalsoul imprisoned in a body. This


emphasis is the opposite to thatof the Bible, but has[unfortunately] found a wideplace in Christian thought.” (ThePocket Commentary of theBible, 1954, p. 32)

Do you get it? Do you seewhat the Bible actually teaches?The breath of life is impersonallife force, or life-energy, the life-principle, not some immaterialimmortalghostseparable andcapable ofliving on afterthe death ofthe body.

AHOLISTIC

VIEWThe Hebrews

did not thinkof a humanbeing asjoined parts in the sense thatone part could exist uniquely orindependently without the otherpart. The Biblical Hebraicunderstanding of humanity washolistic; that is, they viewed ahuman being as a whole (hence“wholistic,” if you will!). “Man isa holistic being. Human life isan indivisible unity,” writesRobert Brimsmead (What is

man? Present Truth magazine,vol 38.5). This is to say that theHebrews, in looking at a humanbeing saw only one unifiedthing: a creature, a being, aperson, or a soul, call it whatyou will. Any idea of a person’sbody being a ‘prison-house’ forthe real inner self, or a vesselfor some separate ‘soul’ onlytemporarily joined to the body –

all suchconstructionsare totallyforeign to theBiblicalHebraicunderstandingof man; itjust wouldnot havebeen on theirradar. Thebody is not aprisonholding ontosome

immortal soul, which is freedwhen one dies. That is Greekmyth, not Biblical-Hebraic faith.That is dualistic thinking. SuchAnthropological Dualism is apagan Greek idea not a BiblicalHebraic idea.

This difference is all-important!It’s the difference between dayand night. It is a c-note


difference. And once you bringyour thinking into alignmentwith the clear teaching of theBible, it will change yourperspective and understandingforever. Perhaps some of yoususpect me of wrangling aboutwords, saying, in effect, “What’sthe difference, who care’s ifman has a soul or is a soul, theend result is the same, right?”Hold that thought and read on:

Greek View Hebrew ViewIncarnated Enlivened oror Embodied AnimatedSoul Body

***Mythological BiblicalAnthropology Anthropology

***Dualistic Holistic

***Soulology Theology (Biblical Truth)While each of the above pairs

may sound similar to theuntrained ear, the truth is theyare not. This is not wranglingabout words. This is not asurface distinction. These twoapproaches are diametricallyopposed to each other. Theycannot be truly reconciled. Theycannot be mixed. Theologicalintegrity is hopelessly lost if youmix them. Bottom line, one ofthem has to go. True believers

must weed out the pagan Greekcorruption that has saturatedthe church so that the pureWord of God can be heard!

TWO USES OF “MAN”I don’t want to get too

technical, but it is important tobe precise in our study of theWord. In Genesis 2:7 andfollowing the noun “man” isused in two different senses.First,man, isused torefer totheformeddust(2:7);second,man, isused torefer totheliving whole person (2:8, 15,16). Man, in this first and mostbasic sense, is the fashioned orformed dust. But, it doesn’t stopthere. God took the fashioneddust (man in the first sense)and breathed life into it; thus itbecome man alive (man in thesecond sense), man, the livingsoul.

Man (in this second sense) is acombination of formed dust and


The Author:Eric Gunby lives in North

Carolina, USA. He has a B.A. inReligion & Philosophy, fromKentucky Wesleyan College andhas done graduate studies atSoutheastern Baptist TheologicalSeminary, in Wake Forest, NC,and at Western ConservativeBaptist Theological Seminary, inPortland, OR.

breath, or worded differently,body and spirit (small s as inspirit of life, the life principle,not the Holy Spirit, nor someindividual prefab personality). Itis this creatively combined dustand breath that becomes man,the living person. Neither ofthese two things, dust andbreath, separately, constitutethe dynamic person. Rather,these two things broughttogether became the living man,the holistic subject –as it were(as in Genesis 2:8, 15, 16).

A good analogy is light from abulb. The light is the result of adynamic union: when electricityflows through a bulb, togetherthey produce light. Godproduced man, a living soul, bybringing together dust andbreath. God brought about thiscombination in order that man(the formed dust) wouldbecome man, a living person, ora living soul. He did not insert apreexisting living individual (theGreek concept of “soul”) into alifeless body. That is not whathappened.

This newsletter was produced, printed and published by:Resurrection Publishing

PO Box 75-612Manurewa

Manukau 2243New Zealand

Subscriptions may be sent to the above address in the amount ofNZ $15 for four issues.

By correctly hearing the Wordof God on this matter, we clearaway mountains of miss-information, errors, and evendeliberate lies. We replace all ofthat with exegetically soundBiblical truth, as we take hold ofthe Scripture’s true righteousdoctrine of creation.

(Part 3 next issue).


“Why Don’t You BelieveThe Traditional View?”

(Part Two)

FFFFFaith ofaith ofaith ofaith ofaith of Our F Our F Our F Our F Our Faaaaathertherthertherthersssss

In discussing ConditionalImmortality among ConservativeProtestants I am often told,“That’s not the traditional view ofthe church!” I believe Scripturealone binds myconscience, but Ialso believe thatthose who say thisoftenmisunderstandwhat the “tradition”of the church isand would besurprised to findthat the view theysupport is generallynot that held bythe majority in theearly church.

Part One of this article focusedon the Intermediate State. PartTwo focuses on Eternal Destinies.

THE CONDITIONALISTVIEW

In the early Christian writingknown as the “Epistle ofBarnabas” (AD 70-120) there isnot a word as to eternalconscious torment. So too, thework known as “The Teaching ofthe Twelve Apostles” (AD 120-

160) and the two epistles ofClement are silent as to thisdoctrine. At the same time thelanguage used by these andother less important works isconsistent with a Conditionalistview of Hell.

Justin Martyr is explicitlyConditionalist when he says:

“Now the soulpartakes of life,since God wills it tolive. Thus, then, itwill not evenpartake [of life]when God does notwill it to live. For tolive is not itsattribute, as it isGod’s … wheneverthe soul mustcease to exist, thespirit of life is

removed from it, andthere is no more soul, but itgoes back to the place fromwhence it was taken.”(“Dialogue”, Chapter 6).

Irenaeus (AD 180) held anexplicitly Conditionalist view. Hesays: “[I]t is the Father of allwho imparts continuance forever and ever on those who aresaved. For life does not arisefrom us, nor from our ownnature; but it is bestowed

Irenaeus


according to the grace of God.And therefore he who shallpreserve the life bestowed uponhim, and give thanks to Himwho imparted it, shall receivealso length of days for ever andever. But he who shall reject it,and prove himself ungrateful tohis Maker,inasmuch as hehas beencreated, and hasnot recognisedHim whobestowed [thegift upon him],deprives himselfof [the privilegeof] continuanceforever andever. And, forthis reason, theLord declared tothose whoshowedthemselves ungrateful towardsHim: “If ye have not beenfaithful in that which is little,who will give you that which isgreat?” indicating that thosewho, in this brief temporal life,have shown themselvesungrateful to Him who bestowedit, shall justly not receive fromHim length of days for ever andever.” (Irenaeus, “AgainstHeresies”, Book 2, Chapter34.3).

THE UNIVERSALISTVIEW

Many of the early fathers werein fact card carryingUniversalists (So says J.W.Hanson in “Universalism: ThePrevailing Doctrine Of theChristian Church During Its FirstFive-Hundred Years” from which

much of whatfollows isdrawn). Thewidespreadbelief thatChrist, betweenhis death andresurrection,descended toHades andthere preachedthe Gospel tothe dead (SeeIssue 33 for thecontra view),and the practice

of prayers for the dead,may indicate that, at a popularlevel, many in the early churchbelieved that one’s eternaldestiny was NOT fixed at death.

Clement of Alexandria explicitlydeclared that all punishment,however severe, was intendedto purify the sinner. His pupil,Origen, perhaps the mostfamous and influentialUniversalist in the early church,taught that even Gehenna

Origen


signified limited and curativepunishment. Origen was latercondemned for various heresies(including his belief in thepreexistence of souls) but hewas never officially condemnedfor his Universalism. The councilthat condemned “Origenism” atthe same time eulogizedGregory of Nyssa, who washimself anoutspokenUniversalist anda mostconspicuousfigure inChristendom atthe time.

As late as A.D.400, bothJerome andAugustineacknowledgedthat there werevery manybelievers inUniversalism within the Church.However, no writer among thosewho describe the heresiesprevalent throughout the firstthree hundred years ofChristendom ever intimates thatUniversalism was considered aheresy, though it was believedby so many even among thefathers. Nor did any creedcondemn the doctrine in favourof eternal conscious torment.

The half-pagan emperorJustinian attempted to haveUniversalism condemned. Heclosed the theological schools,and demanded thecondemnation of Universalismby law. But the doctrine was soprevalent in the church that thecouncil refused to obey his edictto suppress it.

My point is notto defend thedoctrine ofUniversalSalvation (which Ido not believe issupported byScripture). Mypoint is merely tosuggest that anhonest appraisalof church historywill reveal thatbothConditionalismand Universalism

can at least lay an equalclaim to being part of “originalprimitive Christianity” as can theso-called “traditional view” ofeternal conscious torment.

ETERNAL CONSCIOUSTORMENT

One of the first clear advocatesof eternal conscious tormentwas Tertullian (AD 197). Hespeaks of a time when “there

Tertullian


will be neither death again norresurrection again, but we shallbe always the same as we arenow, without changing. Theworshippers of God shall alwaysbe with God, clothed in theproper substance of eternity.But the godless and those whohave not turned wholly to Godwill be punished in fire equally

unending,and theyshall havefrom thevery natureof this fire,divine as itwere, asupply ofincorruptibility”(Apology ,44:12-13).

So too,Hippolytus(AD 212)speaksthus: “The

unquenchable and unending fireawaits these latter [lovers ofevil], and a certain fiery wormwhich does not die and whichdoes not waste the body butcontinually bursts forth from thebody with unceasing pain. Nosleep will give them rest; nonight will soothe them; no deathwill deliver them from

punishment; no appeal ofinterceding friends will profitthem” (Against the Greeks 3).

CONCLUSIONSThere was a hard edge to the

theology of the Latins (in theWest) not found among theGreeks (in the East). No historiandisputes that eternal conscioustorment was increasinglyfavoured in the West untilAugustine. Since then it haspredominated. Nevertheless, it isintriguing to note the variety ofopinion that existed among earlyChristian interpreters and that,especially among those born tothe language of the NewTestament (the Greeks), therewas no attempt to impose uponbelievers the awful doctrine ofeternal conscious torment.

Scripture alone binds myconscience, but I believe historyshows us that belief in eternalconscious torment was not as“universal” in the early church asis sometimes supposed. When weconsider the horrible nature ofthe doctrine, how it reflects badlyupon our loving God and the LordJesus Christ, given that isfounded on exegetically “thin ice”shouldn’t we be quick to abandonthis doctrine?

- David Burge.

from death to life - afterlife teaching • life • death • resurrection • eternal destiny june...

Documents