Let's talk about it

Does anyone out there think that after death you are allowed to talk about why you did or did not do certain things, or is it just an automatic shove towards Heaven or Hell ? I would like to present my case.

Originally posted by buckky
Does anyone out there think that after death you are allowed to talk about why you did or did not do certain things, or is it just an automatic shove towards Heaven or Hell ? I would like to present my case.

What happened to just being dead?

Originally posted by buckky
Does anyone out there think that after death you are allowed to talk about why you did or did not do certain things, or is it just an automatic shove towards Heaven or Hell ? I would like to present my case.

I suddenly have an image of God looking like Dr. Phil. *shudders*

EDIT - Worse! DR. LAURA!! *desperately searches for different mental images*

Originally posted by buckky
Does anyone out there think that after death you are allowed to talk about why you did or did not do certain things, or is it just an automatic shove towards Heaven or Hell ? I would like to present my case.

If you believe in God and life after death then presumably you also believe he knows reasonably well what you did (or how else would he know where to send you), and probably what you were thinking at the time. Thus justification after death seems to be pointless - unless you think you have an argument that he hasn't thought of perhaps?

So, if you do get to present your case, is your next question "Can I take my lawyer?"

Originally posted by buckky
Does anyone out there think that after death you are allowed to talk about why you did or did not do certain things, or is it just an automatic shove towards Heaven or Hell ? I would like to present my case.

I can only speak from my Catholic heritage, but I would say you cannot 'speak' in your defense. Among Catholics, heaven and hell are generally not viewed as places but rather as states. A person in sin, without an act of contrition or any inclination to repentance, could only feel an intense pain in the presence of a loving God because he has rejected the very source of human well-being -- God. This state would be hell. In contrast, a person who has fully cooperated with grace and earnestly sought to serve God would find total fulfillment because he would be accepting in a greater way what he had desired for so long. So the question is not about whether one can acquit oneself from any sins. Judgment day is not a legal trial (it is important to note that in Greek, the word for judgment also means separation and division.)

Originally posted by twhitehead
If you believe in God and life after death then presumably you also believe he knows reasonably well what you did (or how else would he know where to send you), and probably what you were thinking at the time. Thus justification after death seems to be pointless - unless you think you have an argument that he hasn't thought of perhaps?

So, if you do get to present your case, is your next question "Can I take my lawyer?"

Maybe you're so heavy she can't lift you.

Originally posted by buckky
Does anyone out there think that after death you are allowed to talk about why you did or did not do certain things, or is it just an automatic shove towards Heaven or Hell ? I would like to present my case.

I believe that we will give a verbal account of ourselves before God.

I won't burden you with the Bible passages that confirm that view.

But today we use our lips to criticize many other people. One day we will use our two lips before God to criticize ourselves.

You can count on that.

Originally posted by buckky
Does anyone out there think that after death you are allowed to talk about why you did or did not do certain things, or is it just an automatic shove towards Heaven or Hell ? I would like to present my case.

"I would like to present my case."

Do you mean your defense?

Originally posted by Conrau K
I can only speak from my Catholic heritage, but I would say you cannot 'speak' in your defense. Among Catholics, heaven and hell are generally not viewed as places but rather as states. A person in sin, without an act of contrition or any inclination to repentance, could only feel an intense pain in the presence of a loving God because he has rejecte ...[text shortened]... is important to note that in Greek, the word for judgment also means separation and division.)

This may be beside the point, but I've always been confused by the Catholic insistence that a Christian ought to have no assurance of salvation. Why is that exactly? If a born again individual is imbued with the life of Christ, which cannot sin, how can the promise of salvation possibly be lost? "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9).

If you would like me to start a new thread to address this, let me know.

Originally posted by epiphinehas
This may be beside the point, but I've always been confused by the Catholic insistence that a Christian ought to have no assurance of salvation. Why is that exactly? If a born again individual is imbued with the life of Christ, which cannot sin, how can the promise of salvation possibly be lost? "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed ...[text shortened]... od" (1 John 3:9).

If you would like me to start a new thread to address this, let me know.

This may be beside the point, but I've always been confused by the Catholic insistence that a Christian ought to have no assurance of salvation. Why is that exactly? If a born again individual is imbued with the life of Christ, which cannot sin, how can the promise of salvation possibly be lost? "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed remains in him; and he cannot sin, because he has been born of God" (1 John 3:9).

Because, as we can see from experience, Christians do sin. Now while we accept 1 John 3:9, we do not interpret it to mean that Christians are incapable of sin; rather we interpret it to to mean that while a person is born of God (i.e. in a state of grace), he may choose to reject that grace and therefore commit sin. The human will retains its prerogative to reject God's grace and sin. This is indeed indicated in Romans:

20 Well: because of unbelief they were broken off. But you stand by faith. Be not highminded, but fear. 21 For if God has not spared the natural branches, fear lest perhaps also he spare not you. 22 See then the goodness and the severity of God: towards them indeed that are fallen, the severity; but towards you, the goodness of God, if you abide in goodness. Otherwise you also shall be cut off. Romans 11: 20-22

By faith we are made righteous. We receive the goodness of grace and the promise of salvation. I do not think however that this overrides our free will to repudiate that same faith, commit immorality and therefore lose the promise of salvation.

EDIT: just to correct a possible misinterpretation, when Catholics reject the assurance of salvation, they reject the idea that a person by a single confession of faith is forever saved; they do not reject the idea however that a person may be certain about their salvation. If a person keeps faith, cooperates with grace and avoids evil, that person does have the assurance of salvation.

Originally posted by rwingett
What happened to just being dead?

To drab.

Originally posted by buckky
Does anyone out there think that after death you are allowed to talk about why you did or did not do certain things, or is it just an automatic shove towards Heaven or Hell ? I would like to present my case.

You'll go somewhere to get processed. If you are beyond karma, you may rejoin God in the fifth dimension. Otherwise you will be sent to where your karma dictates. Pretty simple really, and not altogether different from some of the christian ideology on death.

Originally posted by Conrau K
may be beside the point, but I've always been confused by the Catholic insistence that a Christian ought to have no assurance of salvation. Why is that exactly? If a born again individual is imbued with the life of Christ, which cannot sin, how can the promise of salvation possibly be lost? "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed th, cooperates with grace and avoids evil, that person does have the assurance of salvation.[/b]

(1 Corinthians 10:12) . . .Consequently let him that thinks he is standing beware that he does not fall. . .

(Galatians 6:1) Brothers, even though a man takes some false step before he is aware of it, you who have spiritual qualifications try to readjust such a man in a spirit of mildness, as you each keep an eye on yourself, for fear you also may be tempted

Originally posted by Conrau K
This may be beside the point, but I've always been confused by the Catholic insistence that a Christian ought to have no assurance of salvation. Why is that exactly? If a born again individual is imbued with the life of Christ, which cannot sin, how can the promise of salvation possibly be lost? "Whoever has been born of God does not sin, for His seed th, cooperates with grace and avoids evil, that person does have the assurance of salvation.

Another aside: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the life of Christ (i.e., the "seed" in 1 John 3:9) is freely given to those who are born again; and to "cut off" (as in Rom. 11:20-22) entails God choosing to take back that seed (i.e. the life of Christ) which was given. Am I correct?

Because, as we can see from experience, Christians do sin. Now while we accept 1 John 3:9, we do not interpret it to mean that Christians are incapable of sin;

It is my understanding that the "seed", or the life of Christ, which is given to the believer, is that which cannot sin; and that it is at war with the believer's flesh. As long as that war persists, i.e., as long as the believer cooperates with the Holy Spirit and "puts to death" the deeds of the flesh through repentance, he or she can be said to have the life of Christ dwelling in them.

Would you agree that an individual who has been either "cut off" or who has never really been "grafted in" in the first place can be known by the simple fact that he or she does not or has ceased to practice repentance?

Originally posted by epiphinehas
Another aside: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the life of Christ (i.e., the "seed" in 1 John 3:9) is freely given to those who are born again; and to "cut off" (as in Rom. 11:20-22) entails God choosing to take back that seed (i.e. the life of Christ) which was given. Am I correct?

[b]Because, as we can see from experience, Christ wn by the simple fact that he or she does not or has ceased to practice repentance?[/b]

Another aside: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that the life of Christ (i.e., the "seed" in 1 John 3:9) is freely given to those who are born again; and to "cut off" (as in Rom. 11:20-22) entails God choosing to take back that seed (i.e. the life of Christ) which was given. Am I correct?

Not quite. I agree that Jesus Christ is a gift free given and that all who receive this gift will not sin. However, I also keep open the possibility that some may accept this gift but subsequently reject it and therefore lose salvation. God does not wrathfully remove this gift; the individual does this by himself.

It is my understanding that the "seed", or the life of Christ, which is given to the believer, is that which cannot sin; and that it is at war with the believer's flesh. As long as that war persists, i.e., as long as the believer cooperates with the Holy Spirit and "puts to death" the deeds of the flesh through repentance, he or she can be said to have the life of Christ dwelling in them.

I agree.

Would you agree that an individual who has been either "cut off" or who has never really been "grafted in" in the first place can be known by the simple fact that he or she does not or has ceased to practice repentance?

Yes.