[quote=“Kendel, post:97, topic:50501, full:true”]
I’m still waiting to hear back on these items.
First one…already addressed (the bible translation, chosen by the person i responded to in the quote it originally referred to, was incorrect. They recognised this and we all moved on)
Your second point…the writer wrote “I neither know nor care”. End of explanation!
Your next point about “pregnancy and childbirth are an enormous burden for women”. Firstly, this ignores the very specific consequence of sin applied to future childbirth. Second, Its an argument you are making that simply ignores what the Bible states. It is irrelevant whether or not you agree with bible writings, they are what they are!
You last point about c"onfessed revulsion for Mormonism…you have not explained how your belief in procreation in heaven is supported biblical":
Um sorry but yes this has been explained…many times and extensively. I suggest you go back and read the responses to this again…and carefully look at the theological concepts presented that do support that view (and no, “a lack of documented mechanism for population control in the prefall world” is not a reason to claim no procreation in heaven…that would be a rather stupid theological argument to be honest given that we Christians already claim that God created all this from nothing in the first place.)
Klax
(The only thing that matters is faith expressed in love.)
102
Then explain it again from a starting point.
Will this do?
“Adam J. Edgar on Reproduction in Heaven”
(or, ‘I Disagree With Mormonism on Everything Else
But They Get This Right Because It’s in The Bible Just Like A Young Earth’)
Starting where?
(and you got a church with a website you’re a member of? Or under any umbrella organization? Do you attend anywhere with people who believe as you do?)
I dug around the thread. I think the only person you confronted with erroneous translations was me. You may have moved on, but I haven’t. You mentioned at one point:
as your justification for your selection criterion. Please use, whatever makes you feel most justified. It still doesn’t address the interlinear translation I provided.
But there’s really no need to continue this disagreement. You have preferred what translations are best suited for the establishment of Christian dogma. We must accept.
Firstly, I have not ignored your understanding of the never-tested-golden-age-of-delivering-children-into-the-world-before-sin. That sin had an effect on the pain level in birthing children has never been in question, at least for me. It is the degree of increase that is important, but that is not the entire issue.
Secondly, I must beg your pardon in pointing out that you are ignoring what the Bible states. You ignore Hebrews entirely. God has promised a Sabbath for his people, a rest from work. Perhaps your lack of experience in carrying a child for any length of time in your own body makes it possible for you to ignore the work involved in the state of pregnancy as well as the wear and tear on the woman’s body. There are 9 months of work going on before the one, in my case 47 hour sleepless agony, which is rightly called LABOR. Reduce the pain of labor, as did my blessed epidural, and it’s still work. At least for the woman and the baby.
Additionally secondly, you seem to be ignoring the plain meaning of Jesus’s own words:
29 Jesus answered, “You are mistaken because you do not know the Scriptures or the power of God. 30 In the resurrection, people will neither marry nor be given in marriage. Instead, they will be like the angels in heaven. 31 But concerning the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what God said to you: 32 ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”
The plain text of scripture says no marriage, the context in which God-approved-procreation takes place. I can’t even allow myself to imagine the implications of the scenario you are promoting … outside of marriage … start to finish … for all eternity … just for women, of course. Which, of course, is only an inconsequential side issue for you.
I have only been ignoring what you claim the Bible states in your attempt to bend Isaiah’s text to fit seamlessly with the words of the Son of God. Isaiah’s vision (labeled by editors whose work in heading chapters and sections is nowhere understood to be inspired) includes
Isaiah 65:17–25
20 No more shall there be in it
an infant who lives but a few days,
or an old man who does not fill out his days,
for the young man shall die a hundred years old,
and the sinner a hundred years old shall be accursed.
21 They shall build houses and inhabit them;
they shall plant vineyards and eat their fruit.
22 They shall not build and another inhabit;
they shall not plant and another eat;
for like the days of a tree shall the days of my people be,
and my chosen shall long enjoy the work of their hands.
23 They shall not labor in vain
tr bear children for calamity,
for they shall be the offspring of the blessed of the Lord,
and their descendants with them.
Isaiah’s vision includes death and manual labor. However, those are in direct conflict with the New Testament’s explanation of the destruction of death and the promise of rest from work. What Isaiah’s vision might tell us about heaven is that it is safe, blessed, used by God to abundantly meet the needs of his people. But this text at face value is inconflict with other biblical descriptions of heaven.
While I neither know nor care if other YEC’s accept your hellish depiction of heaven for women, you probably should. I think I’ve mentioned before that I am from a long line of conservative, independent Baptist churches, whose ground waters are YEC, and who are now more and more overtly YEC. Feel free to check my pedigree:
Community Free Will Baptist Church, Garden City, MI (1971-1976)
First Baptist Church, Wayne, MI (c. 1976-1990)
Tiny TEAM missions church in Vienna (1990/91)
First Baptist Church, Oscoda, MI (1991/1992)
Sycamore Baptist Church, Sycamore, IL (1992/1993)
South Baptist Church, Lansing, MI (1993/1994)
Troy Baptist Church, Troy, MI (1994-2000)
First Baptist Church, St. Johns, MI (2000-2022)
University Reformed Church, East Lansing, MI (2022-present)
In spite of a long history in churches that run YEC, I have never heard a view like yours in any church I’ve attended, nor from anyone in my acquaintance except the few Mormons I went to school with or worked with, and the LDS website, which I use for work.
You appear to be peerless among your peers. So, it might be in your best interest to run your views past a wider audience among those who have better Christian credentials.
I have no idea what you are referring to. I haven’t brought up prefall population control. I have never heard of this idea before. And it’s a moot point, since no human procreation occurred before the fall. And of course, since it’s a rather stupid theological argument, I would avoid it all together.
what is the problem with the interlinear here exactly?
are you saying that greatly multiplying pain means that women in childbirth experienced the exact same pain before the fall of man in the garden of eden?
Obviously for someone who maintains the evolutionary view of the origins of mankind, such an individual does not seem to be able to reconcile that death entered this world because of sin (that is exactly what the bible specifically states…and repeats this claim many many times through both testaments of the bible. It even goes so far as to say that in heaven there will be no more death, no more tears, no more pain and suffering…its very difficult to claim allegory on this.
Here is a theological reason why I disagree with the quoted post view of Childbirth pain:
The theme of the bible always associates sin with pain and suffering. Are you honestly trying to make the claim that the pain that women currently experience in childbirth is not also extreme suffering?
here is another illustration…my wife has had 3 of our 5 kids by natural birth. The pain she experienced in the birth of our first child was far greater than the others because she simply could not dilate enough to birth that child naturally (so that one did not end up in a natural birth). The increase in pain, for a much longer period of time, she experienced in comparison to other births was a direct result of that issue. It is my view that this is probably a result of what sin has done to our bodies and that of our wives. Things don’t function as well as they did when we were first created…dilation is not as perfect a process as it was prior to the fall. I don’t think we necessarily have to say, God did this on purpose (perhaps he did but perhaps not). However, what we can say is that the ability of women to easily dilate “down there” in order to give birth easily is very very different in comparison to what it was before the fall of man. and that this was clearly a very definite consequence of sin.
There are plenty of other examples of physical restrictions sin has brought upon us human beings…very painful birthing is but one of them.
I am not making the claim that there was absolutely zero pain in childbirth prior to the fall…just that the pain was not one of extreme suffering (any women who has had kids naturally will tell you there is nothing like birth pain).
Of course, there must have been some kind of feeling there, otherwise how would the women even know its time to give birth? Contractions are an important part of the process and they require muscle movement.
When we go to the gymnasium to “pump weights” that usually involves some pain…but i would hardly rate that in the category of post Garden of Eden childbirth! (but i would suggest its similar to pre fall of mankind childbirth) Eve nin this scenario however, i would argue that the build up of lactic acid when we are excersing is a result of the inability of the sinful body to adequately deal with it. That is clearly not how God would have made us originally. Adam and Eve would have both been able to rigorously exercise without any such buildup…also obviously they would have been in far more tune with their own bodies so that they knew exactly how to maintain the correct threshold for ongoing endurance. They would have also not suffered from degradation in their bodies due to lack of exercise or aging…none of these things would have restricted either of them in any way. They would have naturally maintained the appropriate level of fitness due to a better mental connection with their lifestyle (something we do not naturally tend to maintain today)
Sir, I refer you to my previous words on this matter throughout this thread. You are superimposing your own view of what you believe I think, because I am not YEC, onto what I have said, without considering the words I actually wrote. Even my reference to the interlinear translation, which is not a problem, but a varification of my concerns. As you advised me, please go back and review my posts in the thread and the words I have said.
Please avoid bait and switch. You clearly stated your purpose in selecting the translations you chose. You gloried over what seemed to be an endorsement of your earlier view that women’s pain was negligible before the fall.
As far as the women’s pain, I am well acquainted with as much as I could tolerate, which was preceded by 9 months of augmenting issues I will not catalogue here for the sake of other readers, and after which I have endured a variety of long lasting battle scars and damage. My one and only round. I can’t imagine having done this more than once.
I have never, in this thread, or any other that I can think of, questioned the damage to humanity done by sin. I have no comprehension why you would think I have. Those words are yours not mine. I will refer you to Loren Haarsmas’ book on 4 views regarding the entrance of sin into the world (I think the title is “When did Sin Begin”) as a thoughtful exploration of considering this question in light of evolution. Publically, I claim no particular view.
You cannot agree or disagree with me, because you have not understood what I said.
You have stayed from your OP speculation regarding the mind of God
You have not provided any support for your assumption that “God’s desire to produce us” implies that God intends that to continue on through eternity. No support beyond this is what you believe. Certainly no biblical support.
You are welcome to speculate all you want about what it “might have been like” and attach biological terms to it. Without an understanding of how biological processes work. There is no way to know what might have been, even when all the people in the room are YECs who have hammered all the sticky-out-bits of the text flat enough to say they have conformed reality to it. This is the kind of speculation that has lead to all manner of bizarre “philosophies” and cults over human history. You may feel sure you have it all figured out and demand that the rest of us swallow it. But you are speculating, not even hypothesizing. You cannot test it. You cannot know. You were not there.
My heavenly Father knows. And he loves me and cares for me…enough to claim me as his own and saves me. My future is in his hands, not yours or any other man’s, who cares more about his own personal speculative theology.
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.
