What happens when we die? Is there an intermediate state?

[JohnH]

Gosh, not one word about purgatory or shortening that time through……..drumroll please………indulgences!

Would you like us to begin?

I find the idea that you pray for someone who is currently being tormented in purgatory and it "shortens" their time to be absurd. Even more absurd is my local monastery where they will pray on behalf of a deceased loved one for a fee. (I will admit that I have bought stuff from their bread and soup sale.)

[MattY]

MattY,

Do you have any thoughts on how your position is identical to the "standard" evangelical position, and why it might be that conservative Anabaptists have adopted this position which is a noted departure from the descriptions in the old confessions, the Martyrs' Mirror, etc.?

I am not saying either position is right or wrong; I am simply observing how evangelical doctrines seem to often take over, and the explanations given are exactly the kind of explanation a Reformed Baptist would give.

A number of thoughts come to mind.

First is to question whether that "soul sleep" was actually "the" early Anabaptist position or whether the Anabaptists were more varied on the topic. GAMEO actually says that there is no convincing evidence that Anabaptists or Mennonites held to that position anywhere. That's probably overstating the case a bit. Some of the early statements do sound like soul sleep or are at least ambiguous. https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Sleep_of_the_Soul
But, the Waterlander Confession (1577) actually states, "We believe that the souls of believers, after being separated from the body in death, are carried by angels to places where they taste and feel joy and happiness, which places we do not conveniently know how to name except as Holy Scripture itself instructs, namely Abraham's bosom, Paradise. And we confess, contrariwise, that the souls of unbelievers, after being separated from the body in death, are carried [to places] where they suffer pain and fear. With this simple confession about these places we must be content."

Second, Martin Luther and William Tyndale also held to the soul sleep view; but Lutheran theology today does not. The 1500s were a time of lots of change and questioning of old positions; pretty much everything came up for question, even outright heresy in some outsider groups, and soul sleep was one issue that was questioned in a lot of groups and it took a while for a kind of orthodox consensus about it to re-emerge across the spectrum of Christianity. There was a Dutch Mennonite minister named Maatschoen in the early 1700s who defended against the accusation of ”soul sleep” and explicitly said that's not what Mennonites believed. I would guess, and this is just a guess, that after decades of discussions both internal and external (with Protestants) the view declined and went away, being replaced by the standard view held by most Protestants, which was already the view of some of the Anabaptists anyway.

Third is that it doesn't bother me to say that the early Anabaptists could be and were wrong on some things - issues that were not the core of their disagreement with the magisterial Reformers. Sometimes those issues touched on historical orthodoxy, such as Menno's view of Christ's flesh and his conception in Mary. But not all Anabaptists held to that either. The way I see it, some theological traditions might have a clear and better understanding on certain issues than other traditions, even if those other traditions are right on the core of the ideas on which they disagree. And so, I have no problem taking and agreeing with multiple traditions on different issues; God has not given all of his wisdom to just one group.

Fourth is that the early church fathers believed in the soul's conscious existence after death and whatever the respective views of the Reformers and Anabaptists, the early church fathers matter too.

[Valerie]

MattY,

Do you have any thoughts on how your position is identical to the "standard" evangelical position, and why it might be that conservative Anabaptists have adopted this position which is a noted departure from the descriptions in the old confessions, the Martyrs' Mirror, etc.?

I am not saying either position is right or wrong; I am simply observing how evangelical doctrines seem to often take over, and the explanations given are exactly the kind of explanation a Reformed Baptist would give.

A number of thoughts come to mind.

First is to question whether that "soul sleep" was actually "the" early Anabaptist position or whether the Anabaptists were more varied on the topic. GAMEO actually says that there is no convincing evidence that Anabaptists or Mennonites held to that position anywhere. That's probably overstating the case a bit. Some of the early statements do sound like soul sleep or are at least ambiguous. https://gameo.org/index.php?title=Sleep_of_the_Soul
But, the Waterlander Confession (1577) actually states, "We believe that the souls of believers, after being separated from the body in death, are carried by angels to places where they taste and feel joy and happiness, which places we do not conveniently know how to name except as Holy Scripture itself instructs, namely Abraham's bosom, Paradise. And we confess, contrariwise, that the souls of unbelievers, after being separated from the body in death, are carried [to places] where they suffer pain and fear. With this simple confession about these places we must be content."

Second, Martin Luther and William Tyndale also held to the soul sleep view; but Lutheran theology today does not. The 1500s were a time of lots of change and questioning of old positions; pretty much everything came up for question, even outright heresy in some outsider groups, and soul sleep was one issue that was questioned in a lot of groups and it took a while for a kind of orthodox consensus about it to re-emerge across the spectrum of Christianity. There was a Dutch Mennonite minister named Maatschoen in the early 1700s who defended against the accusation of ”soul sleep” and explicitly said that's not what Mennonites believed. I would guess, and this is just a guess, that after decades of discussions both internal and external (with Protestants) the view declined and went away, being replaced by the standard view held by most Protestants, which was already the view of some of the Anabaptists anyway.

Third is that it doesn't bother me to say that the early Anabaptists could be and were wrong on some things - issues that were not the core of their disagreement with the magisterial Reformers. Sometimes those issues touched on historical orthodoxy, such as Menno's view of Christ's flesh and his conception in Mary. But not all Anabaptists held to that either. The way I see it, some theological traditions might have a clear and better understanding on certain issues than other traditions, even if those other traditions are right on the core of the ideas on which they disagree. And so, I have no problem taking and agreeing with multiple traditions on different issues; God has not given all of his wisdom to just one group.

Fourth is that the early church fathers believed in the soul's conscious existence after death and whatever the respective views of the Reformers and Anabaptists, the early church fathers matter too.

To my recollection since I joined the forum, you seem to be the first to confess the Early Anabaptists could have been wrong on anything- I’ve always sensed a fear to do so all these years.

Comments from early Church fathers have been most helpful to me since they were handed down the earliest from Christ teaching His Apostles even more after His resurrection and them handing down what they were taught.

[JayP]

I have no idea why the positions and doctrines of early Anabaptist leaders are particularly relevant.
Do not misunderstand that statement. I have great respect to many core Anabaptist elements such as separation, non resistance, the pilgrims d stranger focus. But it does not matter if those ideals originated with the founders or developed later. There is no “authority” for those first Anabaptist leaders as compared to say the importance Catholics give to Doctors of the Church or the Orthodox. Give to the early Desert Fathers. Some Anabaptist ideals were presented by the founders and continue, others discarded.

The point being individual Anabaptist teachings evolve (look how different urgent views of Eastern and LMC are yet who (at least here is denying either the Anabaptist label?

Every day Anabaptist groups are forced to look at beliefs and practices and reconcile if they are consistent with Christianity. It is both a weakness and strength simultaneously.


What I also found laughable (on a good day) and sad (on a bad day) is the inability of many sincere folks to understand we clearly do not have a totally clear understanding of God. Sure, enough to know right from wrong, the path to salvation…absolutely.

But just as we use a phrases like Jesus is 100% man and 100% God, or The Father, Son and Holy Ghist are three persons but one God we forget these are attempts by limited human minds to grasps concepts or yes, realities that are behind us.

Scripture and teachings from the early church clearly do not detail what comes after death in a bullet point way. Yet so many are positive they have the answers and others are dumb or heretics. Sheesh.

[JohnH]

I have no idea why the positions and doctrines of early Anabaptist leaders are particularly relevant.
Do not misunderstand that statement. I have great respect to many core Anabaptist elements such as separation, non resistance, the pilgrims d stranger focus. But it does not matter if those ideals originated with the founders or developed later. There is no “authority” for those first Anabaptist leaders as compared to say the importance Catholics give to Doctors of the Church or the Orthodox. Give to the early Desert Fathers. Some Anabaptist ideals were presented by the founders and continue, others discarded.

The point being individual Anabaptist teachings evolve (look how different urgent views of Eastern and LMC are yet who (at least here is denying either the Anabaptist label?

Every day Anabaptist groups are forced to look at beliefs and practices and reconcile if they are consistent with Christianity. It is both a weakness and strength simultaneously.


What I also found laughable (on a good day) and sad (on a bad day) is the inability of many sincere folks to understand we clearly do not have a totally clear understanding of God. Sure, enough to know right from wrong, the path to salvation…absolutely.

But just as we use a phrases like Jesus is 100% man and 100% God, or The Father, Son and Holy Ghist are three persons but one God we forget these are attempts by limited human minds to grasps concepts or yes, realities that are behind us.

Scripture and teachings from the early church clearly do not detail what comes after death in a bullet point way. Yet so many are positive they have the answers and others are dumb or heretics. Sheesh.

Instead of criticising Anabaptists, why don't you explain what the Catholic position is, including any Latin vs Eastern Catholic differences?

[JimFoxvog]

I also think there will be some sort of physical aspect to our "spiritual bodies" in the intermediate state since we also will receive white robes to be clothed in.

Might not the white robes of Revelation be metaphorical as the fine linen is?

it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure”— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. - Rev 19.8 ESV

[JayP]

As usual John you miss the point. I am not criticizing Anabaptist positions on the post death state. I do not think many here want to hear what the Catholic or Orthodox positions are, and if they do, there are better sources than someone posting here.

The point, I go slow for you, is that the very nature of Anabaptism means you are on your own in figuring things out. You do not HAVE some sort of “founding authority” nor established authority. Catholics, Jews, Orthodox look at past institutions or teaching differently than you do, and each Protestant sect differs as well. Take the Anglicans. Officially they have past (early Catholic authority) and newer Established authority in their Archbishop. Anabaptist are left with each group, heck sometimes congregation, to figure out where they stand. This board exemplifies this variety.

Of course your hostile nature seems that as condemning. It is not. There are advantages. I look out how in Lancaster County each Amish district dealing slightly differently on issues has practical pros and cons

Heck, we do not all even agree on the place of scripture (yo7 will place no weight on Maccabees), sola scriptura place of tradition). You cannot win at chess when the other guy is playing checkers.

[JohnH]

Heck, we do not all even agree on the place of scripture (yo7 will place no weight on Maccabees), sola scriptura place of tradition). You cannot win at chess when the other guy is playing checkers.

Incorrect. The majority of Anabaptists use the Catholic apocryphal books; it is merely the ones influenced by evangelicalism/fundamentalism that restricted themselves to 66 books. Sola Scriptura is not an Anabaptist doctrine either.

There is an Amish guy who goes around passing out English-language copies of Tobit and there is a lot of interest in the book of Sirach as well as it seems to contain a lot of teachings that resonate with Anabaptists.

[Nomad]

I also think there will be some sort of physical aspect to our "spiritual bodies" in the intermediate state since we also will receive white robes to be clothed in.

Might not the white robes of Revelation be metaphorical as the fine linen is?

it was granted her to clothe herself with fine linen, bright and pure”— for the fine linen is the righteous deeds of the saints. - Rev 19.8 ESV

Possibly.

I would tend to lean towards it having both spiritual significance along with the tangible as well.

[MattY]

To my recollection since I joined the forum, you seem to be the first to confess the Early Anabaptists could have been wrong on anything- I’ve always sensed a fear to do so all these years.

Comments from early Church fathers have been most helpful to me since they were handed down the earliest from Christ teaching His Apostles even more after His resurrection and them handing down what they were taught.

Don't get me wrong, it's not a knock on them. Everyone is wrong on something. Even the early church fathers. The apostles took years to figure out the relationship of Gentiles to the new faith and that circumcision was no longer necessary. The early church took a while to figure out exactly how to talk about Christ's nature and the nature of the Trinity, what sort of words and concepts were right, helpful, unhelpful, and misleading to say about it, and so on. History and tradition can be informative and valuable but the only infallible authority is Scripture.