The Relationship between Truth and Belief (Fair Use)
Belief and Salvation in Armstrongism
An Example of the Autocratic Model of Belief Management
By Scout
"In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."
– A common view of belief in mainstream Christianity
There are some beliefs that I hold that are not held by the denomination I belong to. One of my personal beliefs has scriptural support in the New Testament and was common among the Patristics but has fallen into obscurity in modern day Christianity. Further, there are some things in Christian belief that I hold without reserve. Then there are others where I permit myself some reserve. While I subscribe to the idea of the Eternal Generation of the Son because it effectively reflects Biblical data, I have reservations about it because it is so arcane, therefore, I am not going to fall on my sword over it.
I
The Case of Belief in “Soul Sleep”
A case in point. Do you really need to believe in “soul sleep,” an old Adventist viewpoint, in order to receive salvation? Christianity does not have heartburn over soul sleep. Roger Olson, a theologian at Baylor University, does not regard soul sleep even as a heresy. He feels it is really just an opinion. My guess is that if you openly state that you do not believe in soul sleep in an Armstrongist denomination, you will eventually be disfellowshipped. First, you will be counseled and if you remain recalcitrant you will be cast out as a rebel against the government of God. An issue of belief is transformed into an issue of governance. This is because you do not have the liberty under denominational governance to believe anything outside the boundaries of little booklet theology.
In truth, I don’t know how thoroughly these boundaries have been tested. Maybe you could believe that Zebulon is really only part of Holland but not all of it. Maybe nobody would care about that. But I doubt that you could decide not to unleaven your house one year and yet remain a member in good standing. Such issues of belief might even pivot on the autocratic proclivities of your local Armstrongist minister more than anything else. Maybe he would insist on your fealty to the body of church belief exactly as it is written up in the little booklets. No quarter given. This approach might even be couched as “bound in heaven.”
I believe soul sleep is a non-essential. However, I don’t believe that Armstrongist theology sorts beliefs into essential and non-essential categories. When I was an Armstrongist, I was always rigorous about belief in little booklet theology. So, I did not have the occasion to collect much empirical evidence on how some assertion of personal belief might be handled by the Armstrongist ministry. I had no personal beliefs. I don’t now have a big commitment to the intermediate state as opposed to soul sleep. If I arrived in the next life and someone told me that soul sleep was actually true, I would not go so far as to yawn but it would not disturb my equanimity. It is non-essential to salvation.
The Case for Viewpoint
The Bible implicitly permits viewpoint by not being exhaustive on every subject. For instance, consider the subject of what happens to a person immediately after death. There is an exegesis that points to soul sleep. And there is also an exegesis for the intermediate state. The Biblical authors do not treat this topic exhaustively so there is naturally divergence in viewpoint among readers. I happen to believe that the intermediate state belief has more supportive data in scripture. Yet, the fact is, we do not find incontrovertible clarity in scripture on the topic of soul sleep.
I do believe there are principles of Christianity that are incontrovertible. Christianity is, after all, a thing. It has boundaries within which core essentials reside. You can get so far away from the core, like the Circumcision Party did, that Paul says that Christ no longer has an effect for you and you are fallen from grace (Galatians 5:4). I also believe that we are intended to grow in knowledge as the Holy Spirit provides (John 14:26, 2 Peter 3:18). Only brothers that are a little naïve would assert that we know pretty much all that there is to know about God and his Way – that knowledge is no static.
Some might say that no understanding can happen outside the leadership of the church. But if the leadership of the church says that Pentecost is on Monday, does that make it so? And what is the status of those people in the pews who recognized it as being on Sunday before the pulpit recognized it was on Sunday? Belief may not correspond to truth as the graphic at the top shows. Is it possible in this system that someone could have been disfellowshipped for keeping Pentecost on the right day? I believe the suppression of viewpoint by church leadership is not an issue of correct belief but of denominational discipline. It is an issue of governance. If the church preaches error, you as a follower must believe error until the church reforms its position, if ever.
The Upshot
Armstrongism brooks no disagreement on theology. Since the Bible is not exhaustive on every topic and translating ancient language is somewhat elastic because modern word definitions may be just consensus definitions, a better approach would be to recognize the division between essential and non-essential beliefs. And the autocratic approach to belief does not play well with salvation. It burdens salvation with conditions that could be classed as denominational interpretations. This topic is non-trivial. I cannot do it justice in a few words. I am interested in what others think.
25 comments:
Well, did HWA fulfill Dan 8:23-25? I think it's a possibility after checking all the possible Hebrew meanings of words but a casual leader of almost any translation will I think not believe. HWA certainly did play "king", did corrupt ("destroy") the brethren, most certainly did prosper. What a (w)retch!!
Scout, I think that your article certainly fits my own experience in Armstrongism. We were taught that God had revealed his truth to all of us THROUGH Herbie! Moreover, any deviation from that "truth" was subject to immediate expulsion from the "true" church. For those who had any opinions or interpretations of Scripture that differed from Herb's teachings, the Lake of Fire was made to yawn before them - ready to swallow them up!
Never heard the expression "Soul sleep" being mentioned, let alone taught in COG.
What i used to hear taught is the biblically based, hopeful concept of the ressurection of the dead from scriptures.
1Corinthians 15:52 In a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable and we shall be changed.
Scout writes, "a better approach would be to recognise the division between essential and non essential beliefs".
That might work on an individual basis but not for institutions! Armstrongism went off the rails for a variety of reasons, the chief being they adopted the ways of this world.
When money and power is involved, all worldly institutions pretty much act the same. Do you really think the Catholic church would tolerate a parishioner disrupting services, causing chaos, and challenging the Pope's authority? How tolerant was the political system and medical profession during covid, when the official narrative was challenged by other politicians and medical professionals? And let's not forget the ruling Jews of Christ's day. They were not about to roll over and give up their positions for something as flimsy and fragile as the " truth"!
It's easy to see this "my way or the highway" mentality with Pack, Flurry, and the likes. But look around, it's everywhere the institutions of man operate. The fact that Scripture points this out is verification that the Bible is what it claims to be, the word of the living God!!
Anonymous 12:06 wrote, "Never heard the expression "Soul sleep" being mentioned, let alone taught in COG."
Soul sleep is not used as a term within Armstrongism but is used by theologians. It is the idea that people do not have conscious life after death and before being resurrected. It is not really the idea that they are asleep. That term is borrowed from scripture where "sleep" is used as a metaphor for death. So, sleep is a metaphor for a special non-functioning state, however that might be understood. The Jehovah's witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists and the Christadelphians believe in soul sleep. My guess is that most of the smaller Millerite denominations, like the Church of God Seventh Day, believe in it. It is a one-off belief that co-resides with other one-off beliefs.
Soul sleep is decidedly taught in Armstrongism. They just do not use the popular term for it.
Scout
BP8 4:13 wrote, "When money and power is involved, all worldly institutions pretty much act the same."
I agree with you in general. There are some institutions that have a decentralized approach to belief. I spoke with a Church of Christ minister years back and he told me if that had a disagreement over something in the Bible, they resolved it locally. He and a collection of elders would meet and discuss the issue and come up with a decision. It was all within a local scope.
Scout
Miller Jones wrote, "We were taught that God had revealed his truth to all of us THROUGH Herbie!"
Back in those days, I thought this was cozy. The state of mind was that HWA had an inspired understanding of the Bible, decoded it for us and all we had to do is bask in the illumination. The cozy approach seems fine as long as you don't really read the Bible. If you really read it and tried to plumb its substance, you found things were not so straightforward.
Scout
Great article Scout, I remember Mr. Meredith would always say that HWA used to say to him, "Rod, Mr. Armstrong has made several hundred mistakes."
But the problem with that is that "you as a member" could hardly ever call him out on it in real time or you were in rebellion. Also HWA hardly ever admitted to the actual scriptural mistakes he made or specific mistakes with his false prophecies. And 4:13 is right on the money, the word of God points out the characteristics and flaws of human "leaders" even within religion. That's why I loved how Christ and John the Baptist addressed and admonished the pharisees and sadducees. These guys have that same character and spirit.
So true. The dissident sites of all major Christian denominations have the same complaints. The odd questioning of their beliefs is tolerated, but anything more more substantial results in disfellowship. They all insist that their members conform to "The Truth," an expression used for their blend of truth and error.
I just found an incredible article entitled "Do Jews Believe in an Afterlife" at Chabad.org. The article should come up at or near the top of the list if you type that question into your browser. I'm still evaluating it, but it appears to be a much deeper, and vastly more encouraging explanation than anything on the topic which I ever "learned" from Armstrongism. At the very least, it cuts out influences such as Herbie and his government from the top down, and clears the way for an individualized spiritual experience.
I'd be very interested in hearing the opinions of my fellow Banned bloggers here. As somewhat of a Judeophile, obviously I do have some bias, but I found reading the article to be quite an uplifting experience!
BB
I think the meaning was to do with the question whether the soul/spirit in man has some kind of intermediate state beyond death, or not? I think Armstrong taught that it did not but I could be mistaken.
Whether it be Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion out there, it all boils down to "what" is man, "what" is life and death, "what" is life after death, and "what" is your authority for believing such.
I personally believe the Holy scriptures (both testaments) teach "conditional immortality", that man of himself is not immortal but must have immortality bestowed upon him. A brief sampling of scriptures would be:
Genesis 3:22-24, where after their expellsion from Eden, Adam and Eve were barred from the tree of life, lest they " eat and live forever".
Daniel 12:2, which tells us that "many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, to everlasting life".
John 3:16, " whosoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life". Those who do not believe? "shall NOT see life" (3:36).
John 6:51, "if any man eat of this bread he shall live forever". Those who do not, have " no life" in them (53).
Romans 6:23, "for the wages of sin IS DEATH, but the GIFT of God is eternal LIFE through Jesus Christ our Lord".
1 John 5:12, " he that has the Son HAS LIFE. He that has not the Son has NOT life".
1 Corinthians 15:53, "for this MORTAL must put on immortality (at the resurrection from the dead)."
Whatever view one holds will neither qualify or disqualify one from salvation and should not be a test of fellowship, although with men it usually is.
The Chabad article does cite scriptures from the Torah, and materials from the Talmud and Kaballah.
BP8 6:56 wrote, “I personally believe the Holy scriptures (both testaments) teach "conditional immortality”
My view is that nobody is immortal except the Triune God (1 Tim 1:17). Everything else is created. God brought it into existence and he can take it out of existence. A nuance is that there may be a kind of immortality where God has made something and it will go on forever of itself unless God intervenes and shuts it down. I think not. I believe God sustains everything in existence (Acts 17:28) from moment to moment. If he ceased to sustain the angelic realm in existence, it would instantly pass out of existence.
Some use 1 Tim 1:17 to assert that Jesus is created and does not really have immortality. This is an Arianist position popular among the Millerites, the root stock of Armstrongism. But Jesus is eternally generated by God (by begettal) and has life in himself (John 5:26). And the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son by some existential means that we cannot really speak to. All three are immortal. All the rest of the sentient beings are neither a begettal or a procession but are created and exist at the pleasure of God.
I know that Genesis 3:22 says, “Then the Lord God said, “See, the humans have become like one of us, knowing good and evil, and now they might reach out their hands and take also from the tree of life and eat and live forever” and this makes immortality seem to be something acquired by eating the fruit of a tree and once obtained cannot be revoked. But this is a Yahwist pericope and I believe it to be allegorical. I believe the passage is intended to present the idea that a created being who usurps the role of determining what is good and what is evil should not be made eternal. The poetry just got in the way. I don’t think this can be used to assert that eternal life comes from the physical ingestion of a fruit. “The tree of life” is kind of an expression in Biblical Hebrew.
This model does not permit an unconditionally immortal soul. Eternal life in salvation is just eternal because God wants it to be. My two cents.
Scout
Scout 212
I'm in agreement with your thoughts on immortality, but I was curious with how you reconcile that with the idea that "the intermediate state has more supportive data in scripture" than the idea of "sleeping" in death, especially when there are far more scriptural examples of the latter than texts suggesting an intermediate state? To quote a few:
-David slept with his fathers, 1 Kings 2:10.
-Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth, Daniel12:2.
-Our friend Lazarus sleepeth, John 11:11.
-Stephen fell asleep, Acts 7:60.
--They which are fallen asleep in Christ, 1 Corinthians 15:18.
-We shall not all sleep, 1 Corinthians 15:51.
-But I would not have you to be ignorant concerning them which are asleep, 1 Thess.4:13.
BP8 4:43 wrote, “…but I was curious with how you reconcile that with the idea that "the intermediate state has more supportive data in scripture" than the idea of "sleeping" in death…”
First, we must observe that for the proponents of both soul sleep and the intermediate state the term “sleep” is a metaphor. Neither group asserts that the term “sleep” means real sleep. HWA explained it as a state where there is no awareness of the passage of time as one would have in real sleep. The state of death where the body is no longer animated but decays is clearly not sleep but only bears a superficial resemblance to sleep. The optics are kinda the same over a brief period of time.
The Lazarus and the Rich Man parable is a case in scripture, among a few others, that must be accommodated by proponents of soul sleep in any hypothesis about the afterlife. The account is not just a single word – the word sleep – used by the soul sleep proponents, but seems to be an actual unpacking of that word. It provides a full scenario that depicts the afterlife not just a single equivocal term. There may be more occurrences of this usage of the term “sleep” in scripture but these occurrences do not have the same gravitas as the intermediate state scriptures. There is more supportive data for the intermediate state based on quality not quantity.
Opponents of the intermediate state argue that the Lazarus parable is just a parable and cannot be used to establish doctrine. Yet, they have no trouble with accepting other parables as describing non-fictional, practical events. So, they have a cherry-picking hermeneutic to justify. I do not believe that Jesus would use not only fictional characters and fictional events but also a fictional afterlife system for a parable. He knew people would read the Bible and make deductions. Posing a fictional system for the sake of a parable would be needlessly confusing.
There are a few other examples that support the intermediate state. You can find them on the internet. They all provide a more elaborate context than the ambiguous use of a single word. Personally, I have some disagreement with the popular intermediate state idea. I believe that humans are designed for a bodily existence only. I do not think that the pneuma that is a part of our existential constitution operates without a body. People back in the period around the First Century believed that humans consisted of pneuma, psuche, and soma with pneuma being non-volatile while soma and psuche being discardable. (I get this from David Bentley Hart.) But I think that the pneuma has to be plugged into a body to function. So, I conjecture that we will have a pre-resurrection, non-final body in the intermediate state. My two cents.
Scout
Scout 717
I think most understand that "sleep" is a Biblical expression used for the unconscious state of death, even as "awake" and awakening are expressions describing resurrection. The terms go hand in hand (see Psalms 17:5, Daniel 12:2).
As a parable, Laz and the rich man contains truth, but not necessarily in literal, easy to be understood language, which is the nature of parables. Notice first, this is about a begger and a rich man. Nothing is said about the fate of the wicked or righteous. Heaven is not mentioned. Hell is but that's hades, the grave, not gehenna fire.
Both men die and are buried. This does not say the events to follow happened the moment they died. As I have previously pointed out, when David and Stephen died it was said they fell "asleep", which is what we see with the rich man, who's eyes are opened as he awakes from the grave, the dust of the earth.
Lazarus was carried by the angels. WHEN do the angels come and gather God's elect? They come with Christ at His second coming, the time of the resurrection (Matthew 24:31). Resurrection is clearly the pathway to all the blessings of the afterlife.
Consider further that the Christian hope of the Gospel is the resurrection at Christ's coming (see Titus 2:13, 1 Peter 1:13, Acts 24:15, 1 John 3:2-3).
Christians are now heirs, ready to inherit the inheritance. This inheritance consists of eternal life (Luke 18:18), salvation (Heb.1:14), incorruption (1 Cor.15:50) and the kingdom of God (1 Cor.15:50, Matthew 25:31-34), all which reach their final fulfillment at the resurrection at Christ's coming.
The third phase of the salvation sequence, justification, sanctification, GLORIFICATION, takes place at the resurrection at Christ's coming (see Colossians 3:4, Phil.3:21, 1 Cor.15:43).
You implied you were in disagreement with the popular "intermediate state" idea, and that the spirit can't operate without a body but must be plugged into a body to function. You are quite correct, this is what the Bible teaches.
Paul tells us "in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with our house, our new body, a building of God, not made with hands, that mortality might be swallowed up of life", which is the result of our resurrection from the dead (2 Cor.4:14-5:4).
A pre-resurrection, non final body in the intermediate state IS conjecture and not even hinted in scripture. It's not needed. The awakening from sleep at the resurrection at Christ's coming is the great truth of the afterlife, our " blessed hope"!
BP8 3:56 wrote, “WHEN do the angels come and gather God's elect?”
There is an issue with the timing of the events in the Lazarus parable that you exegete in your comment cited above. Matthew 24:31 describes a Parousial event where the elect then living will be gathered. It does not describe what happens to someone post-mortem at all. So, being transported by angels does not connect the events of the parable to the time of the resurrection. These are two different scenarios: one post-mortem and the other among the living.
You may also want to consider the Harrowing of Hell alluded to in 1 Peter 3. Jesus preached to the spirits in prison (described as “the dead” in chapter 4) during the time he was in the tomb. While there are multiple views on the logistics of this event, what is relevant to this discussion is the fact that Christ preached to people who were dead. So, the idea of Hades containing a population of people awaiting salvation is not without precedent.
Regarding timing, it is important to note that the Rich Man wants Abraham to send Lazarus to warn his brothers. The brothers are spoken of as contemporary to the events in the parable. Abraham says the brothers have Moses to refer to. This places the events in the parable soon after the deaths of Lazarus and the Rich Man. Abraham does not reply to the Rich Man’s request by saying, “Are you kidding? This is the Parousia. Your brothers died millennia ago.” as would be appropriate to soul sleep.
I think the traditional “soul sleep” interpretations do not exegete the scriptures so much as flee from the scriptures.
Scout
Scout 704
A parallel text to Matthew 24:31 would be 1 Thessalonians 4:13-17, where both the living and DEAD in Christ are gathered. Also, Abraham's involvement in the parable (Luke 16) is purely parabolic, for Abraham himself had already
"died in faith, not having received the promises". He, like all God's people, are awaiting the " better resurrection " (Hebrews 11:8-16, 35).
The point of the parable was not the afterlife, but a condemnation directed at the Pharisees (the 5 brethren). They currently sat in Moses's seat but even then refused to follow his word. So, "if they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead" (Luke 16:31), which was Christ! Ponder that!
Every text I have provided up to now has been plain, simple, and easy to understand. They do not require a forced interpretation on things that are presupposition and clearly open to interpretation. Exchanging one for the other is what I would call "fleeing from the scriptures"!
BP8 1:25
1 Thessalonians 4:13–17 supports soul sleep well in isolation. It would be decisive if there were no other credible interpretations in conflict with it. Like Einstein said, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” That, of course, works both directions. The case for the intermediate state is weakened by the use of “sleep” as a metaphor for death. The Adventist trope is that the Lazarus parable is not about the afterlife, therefore, we must discard its circumstantial setting. Whatever.
Scout
Scout 615 says, "the case for the intermediate state is weakened by the use of sleep as a metaphor for death". As it should be!
You are finally getting the point. Both testaments teach that death is an unconscious state from which we must be awakened by resurrection. The dead are dead and not alive. The gift of God is eternal LIFE through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Because Christ conquered death through His resurrection (which IS the Gospel), we will live again.
" If there be no resurrection, then is Christ not risen. And if Christ be not risen, then our preaching is vain and your faith vain, and ye are yet in your sins. THEN they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished (not in some intermediate state)", 1 Corinthians 15:13-18. But . . . .
"Marvel not at this, for the hour is coming when all that ARE IN THE GRAVE (not someplace else) shall hear His voice, and shall come forth. They that have done good unto the resurrection of LIFE. And they that have done evil unto the resurrection of judgement", John 5:28-29.
Scout, there are no in betweens, YOU confirmed it! As you said, " the spirit doesn't operate without a body, but must be plugged into a body to function ". According to scripture, This doesn't happen until the resurrection (2 Corinthians 5, 1 Corinthians 15.
Because the Adventist happen to believe this is neither confirmation or slight. Like you, they also believe in the Trinity, which I do not. Truth is not determined by a majority!
BP8 4:49 wrote, "You are finally getting the point."
I assure you that I still believe that the intermediate state is a much stronger case than soul sleep. The soul sleep argument ignores some very difficult to explain scriptures that support the intermediate state. It is a prime example of cherry-picking scripture. But this has been litigated in the literature and the consensus is that soul sleep, which co-resides with many other odd ideas, is a harmless opinion. I will leave it there.
The real issue is something else. In reading the Bible, we must deal with issues that are not completely defined. This gives an elasticity to the scripture that is the bane of fundamentalists, literalists and atheists. It introduces an uncertainty that points to the fact that we must trust God because the body of writings we call the Bible is not incontrovertible. There is an essential difference between the Jewish approach to the Bible and the Western (particularly North American Protestant) Christian approach to the Bible. Jews believe the Bible is a problem to be solved and evangelicals believe itis a message to be proclaimed. I side with the midrashic approach of the Jewish brothers.
Scout
Ok Scout I get it.
The simple "sleeping in Jesus" argument, taught by Jesus Christ and His apostles, with its many supporting scriptures from both testaments, ignors the VERY DIFFICULT TO EXPLAIN scriptures that (seem) to support the intermediate state. And because of that we have confusion and uncertainty and can't really be sure about anything?
Thanks for clearing that up.
BP8
I think you get it. I mean "very difficult to explain" for soul sleep theorists.
Scout
Scout
I took your advice and ran an internet search on "the intermediate state". Your admission that you have some disagreement with the popular intermediate state idea is a vast understatement! Your " spirit/body" connection for functioning purposes (which I also believe) is quite unique, for all the major versions discount the body altogether.
The intermediate state is based on 6-7 scriptures at most, which can mean different things depending on who is interpreting them. The Roman Catholics have a version, the Greek Orthodox, the Protestants have their differences, and the Reformers were divided on the issue. (see Wikipedia article, The Intermediate State).
It is interesting that the "suffering in hell" aspect (something you reject) actually plays a more dominant part in all these versions than the heavenly bliss thing. And why not, that always works well in maintaining power and control!
As a "sleeping in Jesus" guy, I have no struggle explaining these 6-7 scriptures devoted to the intermediate state. Plain, easy to understand texts should always be the basis for doctrine, not the hard to understand, open to interpretation ones. There is a difference as to what the Bible actually says and doesn't say verses what we read into it to make it say what we want it to say, which is what we find in the many differing versions of the intermediate state theory.
You can hang on to your intermediate state idea all you want, but in the end your view is just as much in the minority as mine!
Post a Comment