What does the modern-day Christian say about "ensoulment?" Does it happen, and if so, when, and why?

This question, to me, represents a severe challenge to Christian concepts of spirituality and salvation. I've asked this question to several supposedly knowledgeable Christians in person, and I've attempted to find the answer on the internet. Ultimately, I've discovered that most Christians have to jump through a dozen biblical hoops to even begin to answer this question, and even then, the answer is hardly conclusive.

If, according to some sources I've read, human beings are created by God at the moment of conception, then it would stand to reason that unborn children are located somewhere in eternity. But that begs the question: where are they kept? What does God do with them? Is there a giant ward of eternally pre-mature children in heaven? Of course, that concept seems ridiculous. Why would God place more value in these empty vessels of flesh and blood than say, animals? Why would he allow such pitiful, incomplete creations to exist in a perfect realm?

I've heard that un-born children are somehow "re-born" in the afterlife and are given new bodies. Perhaps even materializing as their unrealized adult selves. From what I understand, this is only quasi-biblical, and it raises even more questions. These entities would have no personalities or memories and in fact would be nothing more than empty shells, unless God willed them to be the people they would have been. Yet, why would he bother populating the afterlife with people who never really existed to begin with, and who never experienced life on Earth? That seems like it would undermine the entire purpose behind life to begin with. Why not just create people solely in heaven, and forget about this whole life and death game?

So if there's no ward for pre-mature babies in the afterlife, and if un-born children aren't just wished into existence in heaven, then there must be some point in the development of a human child where God considers them a person, and can judge their eternal fate. A point of "ensoulment," if you will. However, there's no biblical evidence from this, at least not that I've read.

...I've asked this question to several supposedly knowledgeable Christians in person, and I've attempted to find the answer on the internet. Ultimately, I've discovered that most Christians have to jump through a dozen biblical hoops to even begin to answer this question, and even then, the answer is hardly conclusive.

Psalm 51:5 (King James Version):

Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me.

For me, there aren't many hoops to jump to conclude ensoulment occurs at conception. Psalm 51 verse 5 is clear that someone can be a sinner at conception. Since sin is spiritual, the presence of a sinful nature indicates a spiritual nature and therefore a soul, making the child a complete human being from conception.

So, I'm sorry to break the conversation and serious debates with my little question, but this is mainly directed to praying, Bible-believing followers of Christ. What does it mean to and how is it done when one waits on God after praying (like, say, when doing daily devotions)?

What does the modern-day Christian say about "ensoulment?" Does it happen, and if so, when, and why?

Correct me if I'm wrong, berserker, but from reading through your post about this subject, I get the idea that you believe that human souls are pre-existent before conception? If so, then that is a completely unbiblical philosophy. God divinely creates the human soul at the moment of conception. So that answers that, assuming that you accept scripture as final authority. If not, you get to choose your own answer, only the options are all rather hopeless.

There is so very little in scripture concerning the death of the unborn child and it's eternal destiny that it is theologically risky to say much with certainty. Here's what we can say: God is unequivocally good. Therefore, whatever happens with those unborn people, it will be the most right and most good thing that can happen.

So, I'm sorry to break the conversation and serious debates with my little question, but this is mainly directed to praying, Bible-believing followers of Christ. What does it mean to and how is it done when one waits on God after praying (like, say, when doing daily devotions)?

Hmmm...well, what does it mean to wait on anybody? If you're on the phone to the computer tech people, it means you listen to schmaltzy or annoying music over which an announcement is made every few seconds concerning how important your call is and that you are caller 568 in line. If you're in the doctor's office, you wait until the nurse calls you--whether that's in 15 minutes or 5 hours. If you are a lady waiting for your date to pick you up, you check the mirror every 3 minutes to make sure you don't have spinach in your teeth.

I kind of actually like the analogy of waiting on the phone for computer help. Except the music isn't annoying...or at least you have the choice of what music you listen to: probably sacred or praise music based on scripture would be best. The announcement which plays over the music every few seconds is far from annoying, and you can be assured that you will not have to wait for God's attention, only for His Providence. Usually when I know I'm going to have to make a tech call, I plan to wait--meaning, I connect my phone to it's bluetooth headset so that I'm free to move around, then I make the call after planning something to do that will use the wait time efficiently but not distract me from hearing when the tech expert actually answers the call.

I think that's sort of what we do when we "wait on the Lord". Perhaps for some, sitting and waiting in silence will net them some scriptural guidance. For me, I've found that when I am up and moving forward, it is easier for God to guide me in the right direction. So while I'm "waiting", I'm also doing the next thing I know needs doing.

I found the following scriptures listed in a topical Bible index under "Waiting on the Lord, manner of"--perhaps a read-through of these will be edifying for you... B. Manner of:
With the soul Ps. 62:1, 5
With quietness Lam. 3:25, 26
With patience Ps. 40:1
With courage Ps. 27:14
All the day Ps. 25:5
Continually Hos. 12:6
With great hope Ps. 130:5, 6
With crying Ps. 69:3

mm

Apropos to some conversations that have taken place in this thread is an announcement that came over twitter to my echofon today. This is an anonymous discussion open to those who are questioning their Christian faith. As of this afternoon they had 4 spots left in the queue, so hopefully if anyone here is interested they'll be able to get you in: if not, I hope this fellow will do it again soon.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... y-evening/

mm

Hello, Tess!

I once was an agnostic-atheist, like I assume you are now. It was a long and surprisingly painful road to finding my way to God. I think that I was a lot like you, I put my bets with science because it is modern and is always refining itself, and I thought that Christianity and other religions were ideas established in primitive times which were quickly becoming out-dated by modern science.

In the 1400's people explained things with God that science explains today, so, to me, it seemed pretty evident that God was simply an explanation to things we did not understand, and was mainly just for comfort.

I'm not sure if that's what you're thinking, but that's what I thought when I was an atheist.

Here are a few things that got me thinking even more back then. I was always open-minded, but these few Christian arguments really got me thinking, food for thought, if you will (I know, referencing the name, terrible pun, er... here are the arguments! ) :

1.) If the apostles would have known if Jesus resurrected or not, why would they have done what they did if he did not truly resurrect?

All of the apostles were killed because of their belief, except John, and none of them had anything to gain through there ministry. The same cannot be said for Islam, Mormonism, or most any other rising cults, they all use religion as a tool for their gain. At its roots, Christianity had not even a hint of political gain or corruption.

Paul says that Christianity hinges on the fact of the resurrection actually happening in 1 Corinthians 15: "If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." As previously mentioned, Paul would have known if Jesus resurrected or not, so why would he place all of Christianity upon that fact if he knew it to be false?

2.) Everything in this universe we can observe comes from something.

Something does not come from nothing, from all of our observations. How then can we explain the origins of the universe? Scientists give the simple answer of "We don't know", because they don't.

The only explanation is that something that defies the laws of nature could self-create itself or has been in existence since forever. Something super-natural is needed, and that is just what a God is. That seems much more likely than the universe coming into existence out of nothing, which would defy the laws of nature. Since the universe in itself is not super-natural (unless you are a pantheist?), we have no cause to believe that the creation of the universe should defy natural laws. Some scientists explain the origins of the universe as a "god particle", but as far as I'm concerned, they are simply deifying a particle, and are no "better" than Christians.

3.) All truth is God's truth.

Do not be fooled by all of the scientists who are simply out to prove themselves. I understand that the field of science is not evil and not simply the devil's way of trying to fool us ( ), but oftentimes scientists care less about the truth and more about what proves their theory. Pure science that simply seeks the truth is a good thing, and we should listen to it, because all truth is God's truth.

Science does not have to work against religion, and reason does not have to work against faith.

_____

Those are the main ones that got me thinking. I'm not saying this is Conversion: 101, but it certainly helped me along. Such an important and complex question as "Is there a God?" cannot be answered by a few arguments or reading a book, it requires a serious amount of time and a serious amount of thinking, do not let anyone else tell you otherwise.

Hi, been following this discussion with interest, but have been hesitant to join in, mostly for reasons of netiquette. I'm new at Narniaweb, but have been on other forums where people who have no interest in the focus of the site come crashing into "General Discussion/Other Topics" threads to expound on the particular bee in their bonnet. So I just want to say I'm here primarily because of a love for and interest in Narnia, plus C.S. Lewis's works in general (and, OT, I must say I was a little surprised to see there wasn't a general/other Lewis subforum- not that I'm kvetching!).

As an atheist (though a Friend of Narnia- think of me as Trumpkin pre-Aslan), I want to offer some thoughts on the questions put to Tesseract.

Hey back, Tesseract,

As you may know, my questions are in bold; your responses follow.

1. (Repeated) Where, exactly, does the Bible say those who love Jesus Christ will spend eternity? Very interesting question. There are many bible verses that discuss where people go after they die. I don't have time right now to find them all and type up an analysis, but I think that it can be implied that those who love Jesus Christ will go to heaven. One example from the top of my head...Luke 23:43, where Jesus says to the convict on the cross, "today you will be with Me in Paradise."

Yes, that's where Christians believe Christ's people go now. But as Fencer has already alluded to, that's not what I asked. Instead I asked where those who love Jesus Christ will spend eternity? For the answer, look up Revelation 21-22, especially 21: 1-4. God will create a "New Heavens and a New ..." what?

Again, my point isn't to show anyone else ignorant or something, but simply to remind you: if you'd been saturated in or paid better attention to strongly Biblical Christianity, I wonder if you'd really claim to be an "atheist" now.... So it is that what you think is in the Bible proves inaccurate.

Now here Tesseract is giving the same answer I would have done- Heaven- because it's the answer that the great majority of Christians, both denominations and individuals, would have given. You, Fencer (if I may presume )and others may have a different opinion, but it's a distinctly minority view.

Though your interpretation may be correct for all I know, I don't think it's really kosher to critcize an atheist or other non-Christian for lacking knowledge of Christianity because he accepts as a point of discussion the belief that most Christians actually hold. This is an internal matter for you guys to straighten out among yourselves, at which point you can turn to us benighted heathens with a united front. Your argument is with your co-religionists.

Another forum I'm on (ESL teaching, my job) has a religion subforum whose moderator is a Biblical scholar- Master's Degree, knows Latin, Hebrew, Aramaic, Koine Greek, huge knowledge of the Scriptures- but he's a Christadelphian, which means he doesn't believe in the Trinity, Virgin Birth, Hell etc.- and he studied the Bible precisely to be able to defend against orthodox (small 'o') Christians.

Every now and then he'll reply to some nonbeliever ranting about the cruelty of eternal damnation or the illogicality of the Trinity by saying "true Christians don't believe in Hell" or "Christians who know the Bible realise that Jesus never claimed to be Divine".

Now, as an atheist, I avoid getting into arguments over Christian doctrine, but if the issue comes up, I'll generally stick to the most widely held opinions- I don't think I should have to consider whether I might be talking to a Mormon or a JW or Christian Scientist or somebody else with differing ideas who claims to represent "true Christianity".

I mean, after all, "strongly Biblical Christianity" means "the interpretation of the Bible my church/denomination/individual study has led me to believe to be correct, even if most other Christians disagree."

Late for class - more later

Hey back, Tesseract,

As you may know, my questions are in bold; your responses follow.

1. (Repeated) Where, exactly, does the Bible say those who love Jesus Christ will spend eternity? Very interesting question. There are many bible verses that discuss where people go after they die. I don't have time right now to find them all and type up an analysis, but I think that it can be implied that those who love Jesus Christ will go to heaven. One example from the top of my head...Luke 23:43, where Jesus says to the convict on the cross, "today you will be with Me in Paradise."

Yes, that's where Christians believe Christ's people go now. But as Fencer has already alluded to, that's not what I asked. Instead I asked where those who love Jesus Christ will spend eternity? For the answer, look up Revelation 21-22, especially 21: 1-4. God will create a "New Heavens and a New ..." what?

*Can't hold back aswer...*

Could you explain your explanation there though Dr. Ransom (If I may call you that), I'm afraid it confused me a tad...

Edit... wait I think I might have it, but still explain I'd like to here it in more detail

2. What is the main, overarching, reason-above-all-other-reasons, according to the Bible, that God does everything He does?

Would have got that one from my Anglican confirmation classes- a loooong time ago- but, as you point out, many Christians themselves would come up with something different, though I think this is pretty much the accepted answer by most denominations.

3. Where did Cain (Genesis 4) get his wife? (Had to ask! )

That's an easy one. The harder one is who were the Sons of God who lay with the fair Daughters of Men and produced the giants? I understand there's still some discussion over that.

4. How come Jesus opposed the Pharisees? Was it because they were very strict about God's Law and Jesus came to show a better way?

Well, which one is it? Why would Jesus fault the Pharisees if they really were such sticklers about God's Law? A bit hypocritical, don't you think?

Evangelicals and others get confused about why Jesus debated the Pharisees so much. It was not because they took the Law so seriously or obeyed it in the wrong way. It was because they made up their own laws, ignored the real God's Law, and missed the Savior Whom the Law was intended to show all people needed, because we can't fulfill the Law no matter how hard we try.

Your answers don't seem so far apart to me, and, as you yourself point out, there is disagreement among Christians on the issue- I assume the "Evangelicals and others" don't regard themselves as confused.

[quote="Dr Elwin Ransom"5. What's the Big Story of the Bible -- the metanarrative?

The Big Story of the Bible is the Covenant between God and His Chosen People, Israel, and how in the later parts that began to be universalised to include God's relation to all humanity.

6. Do you see the Bible more as Life's Answer Book or Life's Little Instruction Manual, or do all its books/accounts have a greater purpose?

The Bible is a compilation of myths, legends, history, folktales, poetry, prophecies, and ethical instructions with the greater purpose of revealing God's nature and plans first to the people of Israel and then to everyone else. By 'greater purpose' I mean the purpose of the compilers, of course.

Now here Tesseract is giving the same answer I would have done- Heaven- because it's the answer that the great majority of Christians, both denominations and individuals, would have given. You, Fencer (if I may presume )and others may have a different opinion, but it's a distinctly minority view.

Though your interpretation may be correct for all I know, I don't think it's really kosher to critcize an atheist or other non-Christian for lacking knowledge of Christianity because he accepts as a point of discussion the belief that most Christians actually hold. This is an internal matter for you guys to straighten out among yourselves, at which point you can turn to us benighted heathens with a united front. Your argument is with your co-religionists.

Graymouser, I think the point Dr. Ransom was trying to make to Tesseract was not meant to criticize his knowledge, but just to show him that no one knows absolutely everything about the Bible. Because there are a lot of people who have the idea that they have read it all/know it all and there is nothing more for them to learn. And there is always something new to learn. I don't know whether or not Tesseract believed that about himself, but I think that was the point Dr. Ransom was making.

Wolfy and Graymouser, the Christians who believe we spend eternity in Heaven usually believe so because of inaccurate portrayals in movies, fiction, traditional stories, etc. The actual words of the Bible say that we will spend eternity on the New Earth, not in "Heaven". (Rev. 21)

It's not always a good idea to just believe what the masses believe, because the masses often believe what they have heard from random, not-always-accurate sources, and don't research it like they should. The masses often believe what they heard on TV, or what their friend or relative told them. Unfortunately, the masses are often ignorant about what the Bible truly says.

~Riella

By 'greater purpose' I mean the purpose of the compilers, of course.

Graymouser,

What purpose would you say a "compiler" such as Paul had for the Bible? It seems to me like the only thing that came out of it was his jailing and eventual death. This leads back to my original three arguments that I posed at Tess I suppose.

It's hard for me to believe someone saying "Oh, it's just folklore, myth, legend, used for personal purposes.." when Paul, who composed most of the books of the New Testament, died because of his beliefs, and he would know if those beliefs were wrong or not (seeing Jesus resurrected, not seeing Jesus resurrected). Paul was incredibly passionate about his beliefs, and the book of Romans, to me, is perhaps the most spiritually powerful book ever written.

So, could you possibly expand on your reasoning of, "It's simply folklore" and what "personal purpose" Paul and other apostles had?

Now here Tesseract is giving the same answer I would have done- Heaven- because it's the answer that the great majority of Christians, both denominations and individuals, would have given. You, Fencer (if I may presume )and others may have a different opinion, but it's a distinctly minority view.

Though your interpretation may be correct for all I know, I don't think it's really kosher to critcize an atheist or other non-Christian for lacking knowledge of Christianity because he accepts as a point of discussion the belief that most Christians actually hold. This is an internal matter for you guys to straighten out among yourselves, at which point you can turn to us benighted heathens with a united front. Your argument is with your co-religionists.

Graymouser, It's not always a good idea to just believe what the masses believe, because the masses often believe what they have heard from random, not-always-accurate sources, and don't research it like they should. The masses often believe what they heard on TV, or what their friend or relative told them. Unfortunately, the masses are often ignorant about what the Bible truly says.

~Riella

Well, I doubt the Vatican or the Eastern Orthodox churches, for two,
get their doctrine from HBO or over the back fence.

A quick check around other Churches finds most of them saying that believers will spend eternity in Heaven with God; some saying that Heaven and Earth will become undifferentiated, or God will bring Heaven down to Earth, while others say it is a mystery that will be revealed. My original point stands, however- an atheist can't be faulted for quoting as Christian doctrine something the denominations comprising the majority of believers hold to be true.

I'd like to add that I have no particular axe to grind in this. Whether the Bible says Christians will spend eternity in Heaven or on a New Earth has as much bearing on my rejection of Christianity as the question of whether the Quran says that it itself is uncreated and eternally co-existent with Allah or an object of His creation* has to do with my rejection of Islam. (*Cursed be the Mu' tazilite heretics!).

Because of course the choice is not between atheism and Christianity, it's between atheism and Christianity and Mormonism and Islam and Hinduism and Buddhism and Taoisn and Sikhism and Bahai and many others. None of us have studied all doctrines and dogmas of all religions, yet we rarely feel uncomfortable rejecting the others.

As the old saying goes, the atheist is the person who disbelieves in 600 gods, while the believer is the person who disbelieves in 599.

By 'greater purpose' I mean the purpose of the compilers, of course.

Graymouser,

What purpose would you say a "compiler" such as Paul had for the Bible? It seems to me like the only thing that came out of it was his jailing and eventual death. This leads back to my original three arguments that I posed at Tess I suppose.

St Paul wasn't a compiler; he was too busy out there doing stuff The compilers of the New Testament came later, when they were taking all the votes of what books to include.

It's hard for me to believe someone saying "Oh, it's just folklore, myth, legend, used for personal purposes.."

They weren't saying that, I am. They sincerely believed it. And not for 'personal purposes' in the meaning of private reasons; see below.

when Paul, who composed most of the books of the New Testament died because of his beliefs, and he would know if those beliefs were wrong or not (seeing Jesus resurrected, not seeing Jesus resurrected).

I didn't think Paul saw the resurrected Jesus, I thought he just had a vision. That's what so amazing about the guy- that he, who had been a persecutor of the faithful, could claim equal authority with people who had actually known Jesus, and make it stick.

Paul was incredibly passionate about his beliefs, and the book of Romans, to me, is perhaps the most spiritually powerful book ever written.

So, could you possibly expand on your reasoning of, "It's simply folklore" and what "personal purpose" Paul and other apostles had?

When I spoke of "myths, legends, history, folktales, poetry, prophecies and ethical instructions"-not "simply folklore"- I was primarily referring to the Old Testament, which forms the bulk of the Bible, and by "the purpose of the compilers" I meant that the 'greater purpose' that shapes this vast collection of various forms of literature was human, not divine.

That doesn't mean they were acting for their "personal purpose" in any venal sense of the word; they no doubt totally believed they were acting in the service of the Lord in collecting, comparing, selecting, redacting and canonising the material.

As for the martyrdom of St Paul and others, men and women throughout history and from every corner of the globe have been willing to sacrifice "our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor" for any number of causes, some good, some bad, from civil rights to their nation/tribe to the proletariat to the Volk to the service of God- remember 9/11?

Well, I doubt the Vatican or the Eastern Orthodox churches, for two,
get their doctrine from HBO or over the back fence.

No, you're right there. There are, sadly, denominations or certain people from denominations, who reject outrightly things that are mentioned in the Bible quite clearly. But that doesn't mean that the Bible is wrong about it. And it doesn't mean that it's a question without an answer. It just means some people disbelieve or misunderstand the answer. The truth of the Bible still stands whether certain denominations believe it or not. And the Bible is quite clear about us spending eternity on the New Earth. After reading the scripture carefully, I don't see any room for dispute concerning it.

And, by the way, the point I was making was not about the New Earth, but was merely meant to explain the intentions of Dr. Ransom. You said he was being unfair, and so I was explaining that he was not being rude to Tesseract, but merely making a point that everyone has something more to learn.

to the service of God- remember 9/11?

9/11 was not done in the service of God. It was done in the service of Allah. Allah is not the Christian God. And the Christian God does not approve of people bombing towers/going on suicide missions.

That being said, I wanted to ask you something. And please don't take this the wrong way, because I don't mean it to be rude, though it's hard to word correctly without it sounding rude. What is the overall purpose/point of your posts? I'm probably just missing it. I've seen you mention 9/11, the new earth, how atheists reject all religions and not just one. Those are all very varied subjects. I'm not sure what they have in common, and what you're trying to say by mentioning them. So my question is, what point are you making, and how do all these things you have mentioned come together to prove that point? Is it just to tell us what atheists believe, or that you don't approve of what the church believes, or something else, etc. etc. ?

(Hope that makes sense. It's almost 3 in the morning here as I try to type this in a way that makes sense. )

~Riella