What i have done is maintain a position that is consistent with what the Bible very clearly has outlined are directly consequences of sin.
TEism has always had considerable problems in this area because it cannot accept that physical death is a consequence of sin. Why is this one might ask? Well that is simple, if a TEists agrees that the origin of death was in the Garden of Eden immediately after the fall of Adam and Eve, then it completely destroys the idea that we could have evolved from micro organisms into human beings…because in order for that to happen, death must exist prior to the fall of Adam and Eve. The reality is, the bible through its entire 66 books has a theme that is the complete opposite of this claim by TEism.
To be honest, so long as TEism continues to believe that death predates Adam and Eve, then they can never truly agree that the reason the messiah died for us is the literal biblical one…so save us from our sins!
This means that TEists deny the Gospel…In denying the Gospel (where Jesus physically ministered for 3.5 years, was physically tortured, died a physical death, was physically in the grave for 3 parts of days and rose again, to save us from our sins), I think that given this issue of death and what its origin really is according to the bible, they are not even philosophically following Christianity!
Precisely as I said.
You do not understand what I am saying.
You cannot accurately articulate what I am saying.
You cannot evaluate what I am saying.
Additionally, you are still unable to place your peerless, bizarre new dogma in the context of broader Christian theology, yet claim it is obvious to all.
bizarre…how do you come to that conclusion given the view that I hold is older than yours and is supported by thousands of years of actual written history? Yours is a modern view that is not consistent with any mainstream Christian view and has very limited historical written support. It has no roots in any of the reformation era, it is not consistent with the early Christian church, is not consistent with Judaism, not consistent with Mosaic teachings such as the flood or creation, nor does it even reflect the theme of the Bible!
The theme of the Bible is very a story of creation, sin/corruption, salvation, redemption, and finally restoration.
I am not making this stuff up, nor is it new or bizarre. Its rather simple biblical theology…so simple that it appears some miss that because they get so tangled up in the complexity of the humanistic interpretation of the world around us.
The reality is, Evolutionism has its roots in the same model that is founded upon a principle that says “there is no room for God in Science”
“Did God create the quantum laws that allowed the Big Bang to occur?” Hawking wrote. “I have no desire to offend anyone of faith, but I think science has a more compelling explanation than a divine creator.”
If the very first hypothesis that modern Scientific interpretation bases other principles upon is one that says God did not create…then I fear that TEists have chosen a pathway that cannot lead to salvation.
Every other hypothesis that is found in the secular scientific view about our existence is an extension of the fundamental principle. Subsequently, hypotheses obviously must be restricted to “there is no God” in order to remain consistent with the original position…He did not create anything!
How a Christian of any denomination cannot see the massive dilemma here is unfortunate.
My hope is that at least some will realize their mistake and take a pathway that is theologically consistent with the theme of the Bible.
I am attempting to address the topic you began in your OP. Please, show all of us here some kind of doctrinal statements, catechisms and/or official confessions of Christian faith that include your peerless view of eternal procreation as you described in the OP.
My belief that Jesus truthfully described life in the afterlife as devoid of marriage and therefore procreation is neither modern nor in reference to evolution. As I have articulated no views in this thread regarding evolution, there is no reason for you to bring it up. Although my motivation for participating in this discussion is personal, all of my arguments in this thread have been supported scripturally, as well as my critiques of yours.
Show us, please, the cloud of witnesses who support your view of eternal procreation stated in the OP.
I have done this repeatedly in my responses in this thread. My original efforts in the O.P were to start a discussion in order to see what other views are out there on this theological concept. What I think you may be ignoring is the probability that i might do some study in the meantime as i am led by this discussion.
When i study topics such as this, i have a couple of very important habits.
What is the overall Biblical theme?
What passages in the bible support that theme?
In terms of the specific question of the O.P, how might i reconcile individual statements from others in this thread with points 1 and 2 above. Are the responses staying consistent with biblical themes?
Are there external factors that can be observed that need to be considered (ie medical science/ personal observation etc)
Biblical Theme
God created the heavens and the earth, it was corrupted by sin, is being redeemed, and will be restored to its former sinless glory as it was immediately after creation. We were created to go forth, be fruitful and multiply. It is not biblically supported to make the claim that God needed some future form of population control mechanism and that a predestination view of the fall of man was that mechanism and that the future redemption process would provide a cessation of our ability to procreate. I do not believe in predestination in that manner. God gave us freewill at creation and will always do this even after the new heavens and the new earth part.
Passages supporting the theme
Creation - Genesis Chapter 1&2 , Exodus 20:11, Mark 10:6, Romans 1:20, Romans 8:22, Romans
Fall of Mankind - Chapter 3, Matthew 13:35
Redemption - Psalm 107:2-3, Psalm 111:6-9, Isaiah 44:21-23, John 3:16, Acts 1:11, Romans 8:21, 2 Peter 3:4, 2Corinthians 5:15
New Creation - Isaiah 65:17, 2 Peter 3:13, Revelation 21:1&2, Ephesians 1:10
there are heaps of bible passages about these things…all you have to do is a topical search and they will fill pages on the screen!
Are responses staying consistent with points 1&2 - this is obviously a matter of interpretation. However, it’s pretty obvious from the vast array of scriptures available whether or not this is the case. I am very comfortable with my interpretation.
External evidence - this one doesn’t need explaining or referencing.
I think most are more than happy to accept the fact that women in childbirth experience labor and birth pains that exceed 10 on the “Rictor scale”
most would agree that mankind is not improving our environment, our social structure, or our bodies. We are quite obviously experiencing the complete opposite of these things. The environment is going down the drain, crime rates and drug abuse as just two examples, are skyrocketing out of control, and the diseases and ailments our bodies are experiencing largely as a result of the first two, are increasing!
Is that enough evidence for you or are you going to continue with statements such as “bizarre” “new” “dogma” for concepts that are anything but those words?
You are not able to produce evidence in the form of doctrinal statement, catechism, confession, church website or other church documentation of anyone else who interprets your selection of Bible verses through the same preferences and interpretive lenses and achieves the same conclusion.
Yours is the first time someone has asked me for a cult type evidence of theological belief.
If I provided church statements of faith, and they dissagreed with mainstream Christianity, I would be called a cult member. I provide direct biblical evidence, and you discount that seeking denominal statements of faith? Are you mad?
I certainly didn’t intend to ask you for cult-type evidence that some actual, legitimate, historically Christian church holds your view of procreation in heaven.
I am only interested in some proof of your much earlier statement:
and disproof of my understanding of your view of procreation in heaven:
If your view of procreation in heaven is obvious to all Christians, and particularly YECs, there MUST be some evidence of this doctrine being widely accepted. Generally, Christians have worked hard over the last two millennia, nearly all of which has been de facto YEC, to precisely describe their various doctrines as well as everyone else’s heresies. If your procreative heaven is obviously true, some church leaders must have put it in writing as well.
This is the cloud of witnesses I’m asking you for.
my answer to this is short, sweet, and simple. one word…“Sabbath” (research it and tell me what the current mainstream view is on which day one should worship). That is the answer to your statement above.
No evidence of wide acceptance of your view of procreation in heaven.
“Sabbath” is no evidence or defense of your view. It is a new round of “bait and switch” which I have encouraged you to avoid.
And it is certainly not evidence that any other Christian or group of Christians throughout Christian history have held this view, even strict sabbatharians.
I have already given you plenty of avenues of research so one can understand this but one keeps ignoring the references provided.
the starting point for you is as follows:
in terms of the fall of mankind and the entrance of sin into this world, what physical consequences has the bible illustrated to us? Would you not agree that these also extend to the mechanics (if you like) of childbirth? Would you not agree that perhaps the women ability to birth has been grossly affected in such a way that it was very very difficult compared with the original plan?
do you not believe that in the new heavens and the new earth there will be no more sickness and pain and death and mourning? Are these things not biblically attributed to sin? Of course they are…so how then can you possibly make the claim that the torture and pain that women currently experience in childbirth is not directly a consequence of sin? Also, how might you explain that on occasion, some modern women do not experience any significant pain at all in childbirth?
What causes the pain in childbirth today…and exactly why is it that some women experience far greater pain than others. What happens to that pain level if there are complications? Would you not agree that in a perfect pre sin world birth complications would not exist?
I could write an essay about these things. however, that would be too much to deal with here…so lets just start out with the above three for now! Please understand, i am not matter of factly stating zero pain. I am maintaining that the feelings of childbirth were not the pain we know of today and that your original claim of why YOU wouldn’t want a child in heaven because of the apparent narcissistic nature of childbirth is why you support the theological position that you do on this topic. I disagree completely with the claim that childbirth and child-rearing is essentially an awful and traumatic experience that one would be glad shouldn’t exist in heaven. I also vehemently oppose the predistation type view that God has allowed sin into this world as some kind of inadvertent oversite on the population control mechanism…ie that some time after creation, He [God] went “oh crap, i forgot to introduce a method of stopping this creation of mine breeding like rabits and overpopulating the earth!”
What I am getting at, however, in my last replies, is that for being so obvious, no one else seems to find your view obvious. Or at least you have not brought evidence that any one does, except you.
It’s fine to be convinced in your own mind, while being a majority of one. Many, many have been throughout time. But that doesn’t mean that sensible, thoughtful, intelligent, genuine Christians will see the matter the same way. For example, I’ve worked my way through the Westminster Confession a few times over the last year. As a life-long member of Baptist churches most things seem very “standard issue” to me, while others are quite different — and well supported. The Heidelberg, the bits of it I’ve read, is quite different in other ways. And a Mennonite friend, with whom I’ve been corresponding on the side, blows all of out out of the water with excellent support.
You are welcome to misunderstand me and disagree with me, Adam, even find my views narcissistic. But you have to also recognize that your proposal is not obvious, even to those you have claimed would agree with you. You are proposing an interpretation based on a paradigm you understand and prefer. We all do. Some are better than others. Some are utterly unique.
So if there is procreation in heaven, how long does it go on for? Will women have 50 kids? 100 kids? 1000 kids? What kind of life will these kids have? After a while the majority of children in heaven will be those who never had a life on earth. Is that right?
These have gone unchallenged however, @adamjedgar I think that you should address them. I gave this a bit more thought, and concluded that:
if there are babies born in heaven, and they’re not fallen like us and didn’t have to go through the rigmarole of earthly life, it makes our current existence on this planet completely pointless
if God wants infinite (???) amount of people in heaven, he’s a megalomaniac
bringing up children is hard work, not something we should expect in heaven. Unless these would be some magical heavenly babies that perhaps turn into adults immediately or are always perfectly behaved and don’t require looking after?
I have looked these up Adam. Didn’t see anything supporting procreation in heaven.
I don’t challenge any of it because it seems to me much ado about not very much more than fantasy speculation. If he needed and was open to a gentle rebuke, he has shown no interest. Life is too short to spend all one’s energy knocking one’s head against closed doors.
A little harsh and hurtful, beaglelady, though that is where the line of thought leads,
Perhaps we are nearing the end of this this thread. We will give you all a chance for concluding remarks, then close to further comments in the near future.