Does "being asleep" indicate that departed believers are not conscious?

Does "being asleep" indicate that departed believers are not conscious?

The New Testament uses this imagery for death about 18 times. All these refer to believers or children. Its use includes "the fathers" (2 Pe 3:4)," TARGET="_blank">2 Pe 3:4), David (Acts 13:36)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:36), and Lazarus (John 11:11, 12)," TARGET="_blank">John 11:11, 12), as well as some from the Corinthian and Thessalonian assemblies (1 Cor 11:30;" TARGET="_blank">1 Cor 11:30; 1 Th 4:13, 14, 15)." TARGET="_blank">1 Th 4:13, 14, 15).

Cults teach that this is a cessation of consciousness, "soul sleep," but Paul looked forward to the possibility of departing this life and being with Christ (Phi 1:23)" TARGET="_blank">Phi 1:23) in a far better state than the present (see also 2 Cor 5:8)." TARGET="_blank">2 Cor 5:8). In this state, the souls of martyrs speak with deep emotion (Rev 6:10)." TARGET="_blank">Rev 6:10). This is not suspended consciousness. The Lord’s teaching in the story of the rich man (Luke 16:19-31)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:19-31) leaves no question that Abraham, the believing dead, and the unbelieving dead are all conscious. If death is "soul sleep", then the exceptional case of Moses and Elijah’s appearing with the Lord on the Mount (Mat 17:3)" TARGET="_blank">Mat 17:3) poses further difficulties. If the dead are unconscious, did God bring Moses and Elijah back from death to talk with the Lord? Did He then put them to death a second time?

These passages indicate that departed believers from both the Old and New Testaments share a state of full consciousness and the joys of the presence of God. They are conscious of events on earth only to the extent that those events bring joy to heaven (Luke 15:7, 10)" TARGET="_blank">Luke 15:7, 10) or are crisis events in God’s program (Rev 11:16-18)." TARGET="_blank">Rev 11:16-18).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Why is the issue of homosexuality important to Christianity?

Biblically speaking, why is such teaching important?

We are facing what every generation faces. The world will always challenge the authority of Scripture. The skill with which the enemy engages the battle constantly increases.

At issue are foundational truths. Is God the Creator or are we cosmic accidents? Does morality exist? Does society or does a wise God determine ethics? Are social institutions a Creator’s design or merely human expedients for survival? Is headship an outmoded tradition or God’s design for the honor of His Son as Savior and Superintendent of every divine purpose? Is marriage merely one possible way of experiencing gratifying emotions or is it the design of God to portray the beauty of His eternal purpose for His Son and the church?

Valid scientific studies show the human benefits of these traditional values; inevitably, other studies purport to contradict this. Ultimately, the authority of God’s Word is the bulwark of these and all truths.

If we understand the subtlety, boldness, and vigor of the attack, we must respond. Positive teaching that establishes these truths is primary. We cannot assume that affirming these truths is superfluous. Clearly, defining the nature of the sin of homosexuality is not an overreaction.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What does the Bible phrase mean - "The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous"?

What is the meaning of Proverbs 21:18," TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 21:18, “The wicked shall be a ransom for the righteous, and the transgressor for the upright”?
Compare the following passages, in which a similar thought is more clearly expressed: “The righteous is delivered out of trouble, and the wicked cometh in his stead” (Proverbs 11: 8)." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 11: 8).
“I gave Egypt for thy ransom, . . . I have loved thee, therefore will I give men for thee and people for thy life” (Isaiah 43:3, 4)." TARGET="_blank">Isaiah 43:3, 4).
“They hanged Haman on the gallows that he had prepared for Mordecai” (Esther 7:10)." TARGET="_blank">Esther 7:10).
“Those men which had accused Daniel. . . cast. . . into the den of lions” (Daniel 6:24)." TARGET="_blank">Daniel 6:24).
And note the use of the same word “ransom” in the Isaiah passage, and of “in his stead” in Proverbs 11." TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 11.
The above Scriptures, and others which might be added, suggest two things. First, that God may sometimes deliver His own at the cost of severe suffering, or even destruction, to the unsaved. Second, that the wicked at times suffer the very fate which they themselves had prepared for the righteous. Proverbs 21:18" TARGET="_blank">Proverbs 21:18 contains the first of these thoughts, and probably the second as well.
W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What are the conditions for reception to an assembly?

What are the New Testament conditions for reception to an assembly?

The New Testament provides an example and doctrine that answer this question.

In Acts 9:26" TARGET="_blank">Acts 9:26 & 27, Saul came to the assembly at Jerusalem. Three facts confirmed by Barnabas enabled the assembly to receive Saul: his salvation ("how he had seen the Lord"); his beliefs or doctrine ("He had spoken to him"); his life ("he had preached boldly"). Some may object that this was necessary because Saul was a persecutor. Universally in the New Testament, wrong doctrine and behavior, and unbelievers "creeping in" posed more danger to assemblies than persecution. Overseers in an assembly have a responsibility to preserve believers in that assembly from behavior or teaching that will endanger their progress in Christian living.

New Testament doctrine implies that, since an assembly is a fellowship, anyone whose behavior or teaching denies the scriptural truths held by the assembly could not be part of the assembly or participate in its privileges.

Since an assembly is a testimony, to include anyone whose life and testimony are contrary to the testimony of the assembly weakens or destroys what the Lord expects the assembly to uphold. An assembly, for instance, testifies that Jesus is Lord (1 Corinthians 12:3)." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 12:3). Baptism is an initial public testimony of submission to the Lord’s command. Without being baptized, a believer could not participate in a collective testimony to the Lordship of Christ.

Carrying a letter of commendation when visiting another assembly is a scriptural practice. The letter does not certify "membership" and therefore guarantee "admission." It enables the receiving assembly to determine whether the visitor can be safely received. The letter is only valuable to the degree that the receiving assembly knows and has confidence in those who have sent the letter.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is there a difference between the

Is there a difference between the “Principalities” and “Powers” mentioned in Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12;" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 1:16;" TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1:16; 2:10 and 2:15?

Some of the statements made concerning them suggest that they are good, others that they are evil.

The words “principalities” and “powers,” when used together, define the status of certain who hold high place of rule, whether among men, or among angelic beings. In the former connection they are found in Titus 3." TARGET="_blank">Titus 3. i, where we are exhorted to be subject to them; while of the latter the clearest example is perhaps Ephesians 6:12, in which they are definitely set in contrast with “flesh and blood.” In some passages, as Romans 8:38," TARGET="_blank">Romans 8:38, Ephesians 1:21," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 1:21, Colossians 1: 16," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 1: 16, they occur in a statement of such a character that it might perhaps be thought of as inclusive of both.
With regard to those principalities and powers which are angelic, there certainly does seem to be a difference on the lines indicated in the question above. Against those mentioned in Ephesians 6:12" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 6:12 we have to fight, and verse I shows that their leader is the Devil. But on the other hand, the principalities and powers of Ephesians 3:10," TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 3:10, who are even now learning lessons through the Church of the manifold wisdom of God, can scarcely be thought of as other than good, especially when comparison is made with the similar statement of 1 Peter 1:12," TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 1:12, “Which things angels desire to look into.” It must not be thought however that their being described as “in heavenly places” is sufficient proof of their goodness, since this is the very same term which is rendered “high places” in connection with those of chapter 6. z (see R.V.).
According to Col 1:16," TARGET="_blank">Col 1:16, all principalities and powers were created by Christ, and this of course implies that they were all good originally. But we read in Jude 6" TARGET="_blank">Jude 6 (R.V.) of “Angels which kept not their own principality,” an expression which will at once suggest a reason why there should now be found both good and evil amongst them. Then in Revelation 12:7-9" TARGET="_blank">Revelation 12:7-9 we read of a conflict between good angels under the leadership of Michael and evil angels led by the Devil, in which the latter and his host will be defeated, and cast down to the earth from the heavenly position until then occupied by him.
W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Why did God wait 400 years to give Abraham the promised land?

Abraham believed God as to his seed, and it was “counted unto him for righteousness” (Genesis 15:6)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:6), but when promised the land he asked for a sign. Would he not have had it at once had he believed, without having to wait four hundred years for his descendants to inherit it?

I do not think there was necessarily any unbelief in Abraham’s asking whereby he should know that he should inherit it. God often dealt thus with his servants of old—with Moses, Gideon, Hezekiah, etc., and granted them signs to strengthen their faith. As a matter of fact, Abraham did not ask for a sign. His question brought out the basis on which God was acting, namely, on the ground of covenant. The heifer, the she-goat, and the other sacrificial victims, all spoke of Christ the One true covenant Victim. Verse i8 makes it clear that the terms of this covenant assured the land, not personally to Abraham, but to his seed, and this was, we need not doubt, the original purpose of God. Stephen understood it so, for he emphasises the fact that “God gave Abraham none inheritance in the land, no, not so much as to set his foot on” (Acts 7:5)," TARGET="_blank">Acts 7:5), nor does He in any way attribute this to Abraham’s unbelief. It would clearly have been premature for a single family to inherit a vast territory, like that indicated in Genesis 15:18-21;" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:18-21; nor had God’s time come to expel the owners of the soil, for “the iniquity of the Amorites was not yet full.”

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the use of multiple loaves and cups at the Breaking of Bread indicate departure?

Does the use of multiple loaves and cups at the Breaking of Bread indicate departure?

Departure begins with a cooling of our devotion to Christ. One evidence of departure is a lack of love for and obedience to His Word. To change our practices from what His Word teaches or to be unwilling to change our ways in order to conform to His Word is departure. We are best to judge our own hearts before we look for indications of departure in others.

When we apparently take delight in finding the failings of others, we too have departed from the teachings of the Lord. If we fairly evaluate the teaching of the Bible on this subject, we can hardly conclude that pouring the wine from a common vessel and distributing it to 500 people by means of 4 cups violates the Word of God. The same can be said of taking one large entity of bread and distributing it on 4 separate plates. If this is what is meant by "multiple loaves and cups," then the answer to the question is "No." This is not departure.

To officiate at the "Communion Service" by distributing "the host" or a wafer violates the Word of God. This is multiple "loaves" and, in addition, bespeaks officialism. To have communion using individual cups fails to clearly express the significance of partaking from the "cup of blessing." If this is the meaning of "multiple loaves and cups," then the answer to the question is "Yes." This is departure.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Can an overseer withdraw from the oversight?

Can an overseer withdraw from the oversight?

Genesis 2" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2 and 3 indicate that God has invested us with the power to choose. He allows us to choose, whether our choice is right or wrong, and deals with us on the basis of our choices. A brother may therefore choose to withdraw from his responsibility as an overseer. Either the Lord entrusted him with that responsibility (Acts 20:28)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 20:28) or he assumed it himself. In either case, he will answer to his Lord for the state of the flock (Heb 13:17" TARGET="_blank">Heb 13:17b).

The Lord has promised to give sufficient spiritual strength (1Co 12:9)" TARGET="_blank">1Co 12:9) and physical endurance (1Ti 4:10," TARGET="_blank">1Ti 4:10, "the Preserver of all men," JND) for the work He entrusts. He intends to refine him by means of every trial (Heb 12:9-11)" TARGET="_blank">Heb 12:9-11) He allows. These truths seem to remove most reasons a man could give for withdrawing.

On the other hand, a man’s fellow elders may discern that he is discouraged because of his own failings, family or assembly difficulties, or disappointments regarding assembly practices or even principles. In this case, he needs care and encouragement from the other elders. Shepherds should shepherd shepherds.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Should unbelievers confess their sins in order to be saved?

Is 1" TARGET="_blank">Is 1 John 1:9" TARGET="_blank">John 1:9 written to believers or unbelievers?

John uses the first person (plural), "we", speaking as one of those to whom truth has been entrusted directly through experience with the Lord (verses 1-5). The truth is "God is light." John uses the second person, "you," in addressing believers, "little children" (verses 3-5; 2:1, etc.). He uses the third person, "he," referring to those whose teaching is contrary to truth (2:4-9). John’s teaching must be consistent with God’s character, so he points out three things he could not teach, "if we say" (verses 6, 8, 10).

Each of John’s "if we say" statements is contrary to the truth in the preceding verse. Verses 5 and 6 deal with sin as the characteristic of our life - impossible! Verses 7 and 8 deal with sin as the contagion of our nature; "the blood of Jesus Christ, His Son" eternally removes the defilement of this before God. Verses 9 and 10 deal with sin as the consequence of our actions; confession of those sins restores the enjoyment of fellowship with our Father.

Unbelievers do not confess their sins in order to be forgiven. They repent of their sins (Acts 17:30)" TARGET="_blank">Acts 17:30) and trust Christ for forgiveness (Acts 13:38, 39)." TARGET="_blank">Acts 13:38, 39).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does each person have a guardian angel?

Be the first to give an answer to this question. Write an answer in the comment section below. Please provide your name and if you have a website or blog, be sure to include the URL in your answer. You may optionally include an email address. Answers will be reviewed.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu