#3 Jesus on Hell

[Wootah]

Matthew 13
The Parable of the Weeds Explained
36 Then he left the crowds and went into the house. And his disciples came to him, saying, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds of the field.” 37 He answered, “The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man. 38 The field is the world, and the good seed is the sons of the kingdom. The weeds are the sons of the evil one, 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age. 41 The Son of Man will send his angels, and they will gather out of his kingdom all causes of sin and all law-breakers, 42 and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears, let him hear.

How can there be a place with weeping and gnashing teeth if all the people are dead or annihilated?

How is that not a judgement of hell that supports traditional doctrine?

#1 Jesus on hell: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=38453
#2 Jesus on hell: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=38457

[PinSeeker]

God says the dead know not any thing. I say that the dead know not any thing.

Yes, but it is very possible to say the exact same thing as someone else, but if what that someone else has said is presented in a very different context, then it's not really the same thing at all, but something very different, despite the sameness of the words used. That's the point.

Gee, which one of us is disagreeing with God?

Technically, neither one of us, but that doesn't get at the issue. See above.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

Pinseeker is disagreeing with God's word.

Nope. See above response to myth-one.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

Yes, I think I do now understand your point, and your point and points of view. That is, I get what you are saying - over and over - and the basics of why you say what you do - many times.

Good. And I know that. I mean, this is not to say anything of agreement, really, but I think you (and Tammy, and others) have understood my points pretty much always. That is to say, the points I have made I have made very clearly, and to understand them is not rocket science. Even third grade rocket science.

That is not saying I agree with what you say and with why you say it. (and vice-versa, no doubt!)

Sure. Agreement is another thing entirely.

These debates have covered various things related to the question asked.

Yes, all these debates seem to span far more than just the topic originally presented... And many times morphe into other stuff... And get get a bit unwieldy.

One of these is what "death" is and is not, in the Bible. The problem is, the Bible talks of more than one death; in fact there are three. Spiritual death, physical death, and the Second Death. So the obvious questions that arise are, why is this so, and does "death" mean the same in each, or are there differences?

Okay, sure, agreed, at least sort of. I would say two, really. I mean, we will all agree, I'm sure, that the Bible never mentions a third death. Only a first and second. You know, come to think of it, maybe this would have been a good place to focus any of these discussions. I mean I know we talked about it at least a little bit through these three threads and others, too. But:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. What would you offer as a definition for the three (spiritual death, physical death, second death)?

2. What is the sequence of the three in the course of a person's life/existence? And, relatedly, when do the three possibly happen to a person?

3. With regard to the second death, how do you understand the term 'second'?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would start into that myself, but I would like to hear your comments first. Grace and peace to you!

[myth-one.com]

God says the dead know not any thing. I say that the dead know not any thing.

Yes, but it is very possible to say the exact same thing as someone else, but if what that someone else has said is presented in a very different context, then it's not really the same thing at all, but something very different, despite the sameness of the words used. That's the point.

Gee, which one of us is disagreeing with God?

Technically, neither one of us, but that doesn't get at the issue. See above.

Grace and peace to you.

Let me simplify it even more:

God says the dead know not any thing.

I say that the dead know not any thing.

You say the dead know things.

If the three sentences above are correct, which sentence disagrees with what God says in the first sentence?

[PinSeeker]

Let me simplify it even more...

No need; that's the problem.

God says the dead know not any thing.

Yes, He does, but if it's taken out of its proper context, that precipitates too simple an understanding, which is not really understanding at all. That's the problem.

I say that the dead know not any thing. You say the dead know things... (W)hich sentence disagrees with what God says in the first sentence?

Both, actually, if they are both stated in the proper context (God's, in the context of Ecclesiastes). I've explained this many times.

Grace and peace to you.

[otseng]

Pinseeker is disagreeing with God's word.

Moderator Comment

Please just debate about the argument, not other posters.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Second, regarding God's sending or consigning some to hell, this only denotes an action on God's part. The way your question is worded implies that, if anyone goes to hell, regardless what the punishment is, it is the result of God’s unilateral action, and the person being sent to hell is a passive victim, which surely is not the case.

I don't think that at all. Or I would think the same about annihilation and I do not think that.

Right, but the wording of you question nevertheless implies that, regardless of what you would or would not think of annihilation. The central point, though, is still that it only denotes an action on God's part.

That might be something you are reading into it, Pinseeker. I would not want my worst enemy to suffer for all eternity, I don't care what they may or may not have done. You think that would not distress some who have been granted eternal life? To know that others are suffering for all eternity? Have you really thought about that?

The question itself is wrong.

Well the question is directly based upon your claim that it is more loving.

No, it's based on your (implicit, at least) claim that annihilation is more loving. Or at least that God's punishment of sin in the sense of consignment to hell in a conscious state for eternity is less loving than annihilation.

I wasn't making a statement (implicit or otherwise). I was asking a question based on what you said.

More loving for whom seems to be a valid question.

Not really. I would say that this consignment to hell is just as loving -- albeit in a very different way, difficult to comprehend as it may be -- as consignment to heaven.

You've changed 'more loving' to 'just as loving', but you have not answered the question with either claim.

More or just as loving for whom?

A better wording is “If God is love, then how is it loving to consign some to hell?” Well, Paul, in Romans 1:18–20, says that these people actively “suppress the truth.” And God has “made (God’s nature) plain to them,” so these “people are without excuse.” Having said that, I don't think there is any argument that God is perfect in justice; He is. And justice requires adequate payment for crimes committed. So then the question becomes, "what punishment for unrepentant sinners is just?" Well, we don't get to decide that, right?

First - God is merciful. God desires mercy, and He is Himself merciful. So if there is a way to show mercy, He will provide that way. Through His Son, first and foremost. Also, that Son said 'be merciful and mercy will be shown you'. And of course as Christ also said, 'whatever you do for even a least of these brothers of mine, you do for me'. So even if a person is a non-believer, what that person has done for even a least one of His brothers, that person has done for him (unknowingly). And there are people of the nations (non-Christian) who prove by their deeds that the requirements of the law (love) is written upon their heart. Then there is mercy shown to Israel out of love and promises made to Abraham. There is mercy shown to households based on love to a member of that household who is in Christ. And God may have mercy upon whomever He chooses. That is His right (as I am sure you would agree).

You're conflating a couple of things that shouldn't be, but more importantly, no offense intended, but this is a total avoidance (skirting, really) of the question

If you notice, I said "first", but never got around to 'second', lol. Your question sounded kind of rhetorical, but then, you also don't get to say that annihilation would not be just.

In any case, you talk about God's perfect justice, but mercy is a BIG part of that, which seems to be overlooked.

Granted, we do have some say in how we are judged (if we are judged), because as Christ said, "By the measure you use it will be used against you." Such as be merciful and mercy will be shown you. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Judge not and you will not be judged.

I'll leave it at that, but just add ~ yet again ~ that what happens to folks in hell is only the result of God's action of judgment.

In the version of hell that you are presenting, yes, I understand that. But even that is not necessary. Serves no point or purpose.

Well, good that you understand, but that it is "not necessary" and/or "serves no point or purpose" is your opinion. God's punishment of sin is absolutely necessary, and the reason it is necessary is to satisfy His justice, which He will not compromise. The wages of sin, death, must be paid. God's justice demands it. He is a God of justice, and He faithfully brings it forth.

See, you do make claims about what God's justice demands, and so I will repeat that you have never been able to show that even your version eternal punishment (eternal conscious existence in 'hell') is needed to satisfy His justice. That conversation is fully in those links provided back aways.

So what makes you claim we are all eternal?

As I've said before, that (among other things) we are created in God's image. But even more basic than that, that He created us in the first place, and that He created us "very good."

1 - But you have also agreed that being made in God's image would not mean that man possesses all the attributes of God. (and man has to eat from the Tree of Life in order to live forever; God does not <- that should indicate that there is a difference between man and God when it comes to living forever)

2 - He created Adam (male and female) good (along with everything else, that is true). But man(kind) did not remain good, right? So how can that be a reason? The rest of creation (including animals and plants) were also created good, were they not? Would you say that all of these also exist forever, every single thing that God created?

3 - Can you provide a direct statement (particularly from Christ, the One who is and speaks truth, the Teacher and Word of God), that states all men are eternal?

1 - Right, we're not eternal with regard to the past. And with regard to the Tree of Life, we are not self-sustaining as God is. I never said there is no difference between man and God when it comes to living forever, but there is a big difference in what you (and others, here) understand "living forever" to mean. "Living forever" (eternal life) is not synonymous with existing consciously forever.

If we are not self-sustaining, does that not open the door to the understanding that we can indeed cease to be?

2 - That Adam and Eve fell from grace and became sinful (and bequeathed that state to the entire human race) changes not one iota the fact that God declared His all of His creation very good. With regard to animals and plants (!), I think you're taking things beyond the scope of this conversation, but I think it's quite safe to say that there will be animals and plants in the new heaven and new earth; the pre-Fall earth gives us at least a glimpse into what the new heaven and new earth will be, and certainly with no sin or death.

I'm not taking things beyond the scope of the conversation, I am pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. If everything created good does not exist forever, then something being created good cannot mean that is must live forever. Especially considering that although created good, man corrupted himself and creation (subjecting it and his offspring to sin and death).

Eternal life - living forever - is a gift.

3 - Well, can you provide a direct statement (particularly from Christ, the One who is and speaks truth, the Teacher and Word of God), that states all men are not eternal?

Can you provide a direct statement from Christ that He is not the arkangel Michael? Of course not. The point is to remain in His word, and follow His teaching. Not worry about things everyone else is teaching, because there are plenty of false claims that Christ might not have spoken directly against in what is written. The point is 'did He teach it' to begin with, or is this something that man has added, a doctrine of men?

In any case, I was wondering if you could provide a direct statement from Christ on the matter, but I take it you cannot.

I mean, you may think you can, but if so I would welcome the chance to clarify whatever you might cite. Surely, if you do a word search of 'eternal' in any good concordance, most all the references will be to eternal life, such as "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" and like passages. But you will probably recall what I have said in the past regarding what Jesus did and did not say to the men crucified with Jesus on His right and His left, respectively, regarding paradise. He told the man on His right that he would be with Him (Jesus) in paradise that day, but said nothing to the man on His left, and that cannot be interpreted to mean "You will be annihilated or will no longer exist)," but only that "You will not be with me in paradise,"

See, I would not interpret it as that either (either that the man would be annihilated or that the man would not be with Christ in paradise), because He never said that. That is an assumption. He said one thing to the man who showed Him kindness, and nothing to the other man. That just tells us that the one man is for sure going to be with Christ in Paradise.

which necessarily implies -- especially with what He says about those on His left in Matthew 25 -- that he would be... somewhere else... and he would be very aware of it.

How could saying nothing to someone imply that they will be very aware that they will be somewhere else?

I mean, I understand how someone might draw the implication that the other man would not be in Paradise. But what in Christ's words give any indication that the other man would be very aware that he would be somewhere else?

Aside from all that, I would, though, cite Ecclesiastes 3:11, where the writer (and ultimately God) says that God has put eternity into man's heart.

Why would that not mean that God has given men the hope, desire, yearning for eternity? That it is something men might strive toward, hope for, desire? Since it has to do with the heart?

So does John, who also makes clear ~ all in Revelation 20:4-6 ~ that this first resurrection will continue to happen on an individual basis throughout this age, these last days (before Christ returns).

What specifically in Revelation 20:4-6, states or even indicates that the first resurrection happens on an individual basis throughout the 'thousand years'?

John is reiterating what Paul and Peter said. Showing it graphically, actually, as it was given to him in his dream.

You did not answer the question, Pinseeker. What specifically in Rev 20:4-6 shows that the first resurrection will continue to happen on an individual basis throughout this age, these last days (before Christ returns)?

Well, the three verses together, as I said, but even more specifically, "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years," which is perfectly clear on its own,

I can also support the straightforward reading of Revelation with 1Corinth 15:23, which refers to people being made alive in Christ, when He returns:

For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him.

... but all the more when understood in the light of what Paul says in Ephesians 2, namely that "God (has) made us alive together with Christ... and raised us up with Him and seated us with Him." Him, Who, as you have agreed, I'm pretty sure (you should have anyway) is reigning as King right now.

He is King, but you see here that Paul has also said that all will be made alive in Christ AT HIS COMING. In one place he is referring to the resurrection. In the other place he is referring to something else, such as the promise, that names are already written in heaven, as good as done I think you have called it.

A question: who would the dead be from Revelation when it states 'the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over'? How can 'the rest of the dead' be referring to Christians when (all) Christians came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years? The REST OF the dead can only refer to those who did not come to life and reign with Christ a thousand years.

I'm sorry if you find the following example simplistic, but I am trying for something straightforward and easy: If I said, "I made the coffee from the cupboard. The rest of the coffee is in the freezer"... obviously the 'rest of' the coffee cannot be referring to the coffee from the cupboard. It is the same thing here, the rest of the dead cannot be referring to those who take part in the first resurrection. So who are the rest of the dead who come to life at the end of the thousand years?

Hey, I understand how one can look at "(t)hey came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" and regard it as a statement only applicable to the future, but that is a misunderstanding, even a plausible understanding. But even if one remains in that mindset, he or she has to say, honestly, that that can indeed refer to the present and something that is happening and will continue to happen over the thousand years

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

They were beheaded (even if that is symbolic) for their testimony about Christ, and after this (after their testimony to Christ), they came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Were they not Christian when they were giving their testimony to Christ, when they were beheaded for giving their testimony to Christ?

Much, much more so, actually, if one considers that little sentence as a whole, that they came to life AND reigned with Christ for a thousand years, rather than merely, that they reigned with Christ for a thousand years. I mean, if one reads "(t)hey came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" in the way you propagate, that sort of begs the ridiculous question that, did each person in the group referred to as "they" come to life again and again and again over the thousand years? Well of course not; that's a ridiculous thought.

I don't understand why you would draw that inference. They came to life (one time occurrence) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Just because something is generally believed, does not make it true. Just because something is traditionally accepted, does not make it true.

Right, but we're really talking about -- or should be, anyway -- the Holy Spirit working in people's hearts and maintaining the integrity of God's Word. If we understand that as it should be, then "what is generally believed" and therefore "what is orthodox" take on a much bigger and higher meaning.

What bigger and higher meaning? You understand that not everyone who claims to be Christian, is Christian (indeed many are not, since Christ said that many would say to him, "Lord, Lord", but that He would reply that He never knew them)... and that includes religious leaders. If there is no holy spirit working in them, what would that say for the doctrines they espouse?



Peace again to you, Pinseeker,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[tam]

Yes, I think I do now understand your point, and your point and points of view. That is, I get what you are saying - over and over - and the basics of why you say what you do - many times.

Good. And I know that. I mean, this is not to say anything of agreement, really, but I think you (and Tammy, and others) have understood my points pretty much always. That is to say, the points I have made I have made very clearly, and to understand them is not rocket science. Even third grade rocket science.

That is not saying I agree with what you say and with why you say it. (and vice-versa, no doubt!)

Sure. Agreement is another thing entirely.

These debates have covered various things related to the question asked.

Yes, all these debates seem to span far more than just the topic originally presented... And many times morphe into other stuff... And get get a bit unwieldy.

One of these is what "death" is and is not, in the Bible. The problem is, the Bible talks of more than one death; in fact there are three. Spiritual death, physical death, and the Second Death. So the obvious questions that arise are, why is this so, and does "death" mean the same in each, or are there differences?

Okay, sure, agreed, at least sort of. I would say two, really. I mean, we will all agree, I'm sure, that the Bible never mentions a third death. Only a first and second. You know, come to think of it, maybe this would have been a good place to focus any of these discussions. I mean I know we talked about it at least a little bit through these three threads and others, too. But:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. What would you offer as a definition for the three (spiritual death, physical death, second death)?

2. What is the sequence of the three in the course of a person's life/existence? And, relatedly, when do the three possibly happen to a person?

3. With regard to the second death, how do you understand the term 'second'?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would start into that myself, but I would like to hear your comments first. Grace and peace to you!

You should start a thread on that pinseeker (or Checkpoint). With those exact questions even.


Peace to you!

[PinSeeker]

Second, regarding God's sending or consigning some to hell, this only denotes an action on God's part. The way your question is worded implies that, if anyone goes to hell, regardless what the punishment is, it is the result of God’s unilateral action, and the person being sent to hell is a passive victim, which surely is not the case.

I don't think that at all. Or I would think the same about annihilation and I do not think that.

Right, but the wording of you question nevertheless implies that, regardless of what you would or would not think of annihilation. The central point, though, is still that it only denotes an action on God's part.

That might be something you are reading into it, Pinseeker.[/quote]
Reading into what, Tam? Your question? If that's what you mean, then, you know, you can ask a question and not be completely aware of what it implies. And that's certainly not to imply that someone lacks intelligence or anything even remotely similar to that; everybody has done it from time to time. But the way you ask the question you asked -- that's what's happening. Or was happening, anyway.

I would not want my worst enemy to suffer for all eternity, I don't care what they may or may not have done.

Sure. Me, either.

You think that would not distress some who have been granted eternal life? To know that others are suffering for all eternity? Have you really thought about that?

Well yes, I've thought about it... ... Okay, I'm going to answer this in two parts. Do you mean in this life or the next? So:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Yes, to think in this life that others are suffering for all eternity is certainly distressing, even heart-breaking. I have many close family members who were not Christians... did not become Christians before they died (or at least I don't think they did; it is possible that God could have converted their hearts by the work of His Spirit right before they passed). The thought of them, well, not being with Jesus for eternity, is very distressing, heart-breaking, etc. But this first part is sort of moot; it's not really what you're asking, but it is worth saying, because of the differentiation that needs to be made between how we think now as opposed to how things will be in eternity.

2. With regard to our lives in the age to come, then your question really becomes unanswerable. All we can know for sure, because God says it, is a couple of things, that:

• "He will wipe away every tear from (our) eyes, and death shall be no more, neither shall there be mourning, nor crying, nor pain anymore, for the former things have passed away" (Revelation 21:4), an answer that may not be completely satisfying to us right now, because we are like, "Well, but how? Will we just not remember? Or... how?" Well, that leads into the second thing...

• God says "...the former things shall not be remembered or come into mind" (Isaiah 65:17). This is what God says, so we can't really argue with it; we have to come to terms with what this actually means. I submit to you, Tammy, that when the Bible (God) talks about remembering things (like the Sabbath ~ Commandment 4), He is not just saying, "Think about it often." He is telling us to act on it, making something the basis for everything we do... or not, in the case of Isaiah 65:17. So, in everything we do in eternity, we will act not in remembrance of anything before eternity, but only in remembrance of ~ because of ~ eternal things. But regarding the question at hand, the more pertinent part of Isaiah 65:17 is "come into mind," which, because of that conjunction 'or,' is in contrast with remembering. None of the former things will come to mind. To this, we might ask, "Okay, but how is this even possible?" I mean, we may agree that those things not even coming to mind seems impossible, but God says it, so it must be true. I think we will be so consumed with God and His glory ~ glorifying Him and enjoying Him forever, which means enjoying everything He has done for us and given us, especially Jesus but even other people ~ that we will no longer even think of anything of temporal life, and it seems really impossible to even argue with that, because that's, again, what God says. I think in eternity, for us, it will be as the hymn-writer says:
  
  Perfect submission, all is at rest,
  I in my Savior, am happy and blessed; [will be, of course]
  Watching and waiting, looking above, [well, no longer watching or waiting or looking above, because the new heaven and new earth ~ and Christ ~ will have come]
  Filled with His goodness, lost in His love. [just reiterating this... filled with His goodness and lost in His love]
  (Blessed Assurance)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, it's based on your (implicit, at least) claim that annihilation is more loving. Or at least that God's punishment of sin in the sense of consignment to hell in a conscious state for eternity is less loving than annihilation.

I wasn't making a statement (implicit or otherwise). I was asking a question based on what you said.

But you did make a statement, albeit at least implicitly, that annihilation was/is more loving than eternal existence in hell. That's been your position all along.

More loving for whom seems to be a valid question.

Not really. I would say that this consignment to hell is just as loving -- albeit in a very different way, difficult to comprehend as it may be -- as consignment to heaven.

You've changed 'more loving' to 'just as loving', but you have not answered the question with either claim.

LOL! No, both, really ~ 'just as' and 'more.' Just trying to meet you where you are, Tammy... Your question was regarding which is loving at all, your insinuation being that one alternative is, and the other alternative is not, which is not the case. Goodness gracious. And I have answered your question, with both claims, but I fully recognize not to your satisfaction, but, well, of course not, but that's beside the point.

More or just as loving for whom?

Again, both more and just as ~ or, I would put it this way: "at least 'just as,' but really 'more' " (as in 'more than we can even think, using Paul's words in Ephesians 3, although there he is speaking on a different subject to only Christians, but still regarding His love). But in answer to your question here, everyone.

A better wording is “If God is love, then how is it loving to consign some to hell?” Well, Paul, in Romans 1:18–20, says that these people actively “suppress the truth.” And God has “made (God’s nature) plain to them,” so these “people are without excuse.” Having said that, I don't think there is any argument that God is perfect in justice; He is. And justice requires adequate payment for crimes committed. So then the question becomes, "what punishment for unrepentant sinners is just?" Well, we don't get to decide that, right?

First - God is merciful. God desires mercy, and He is Himself merciful. So if there is a way to show mercy, He will provide that way. Through His Son, first and foremost. Also, that Son said 'be merciful and mercy will be shown you'. And of course as Christ also said, 'whatever you do for even a least of these brothers of mine, you do for me'. So even if a person is a non-believer, what that person has done for even a least one of His brothers, that person has done for him (unknowingly). And there are people of the nations (non-Christian) who prove by their deeds that the requirements of the law (love) is written upon their heart. Then there is mercy shown to Israel out of love and promises made to Abraham. There is mercy shown to households based on love to a member of that household who is in Christ. And God may have mercy upon whomever He chooses. That is His right (as I am sure you would agree).

You're conflating a couple of things that shouldn't be, but more importantly, no offense intended, but this is a total avoidance (skirting, really) of the question.

If you notice, I said "first", but never got around to 'second', lol. Your question sounded kind of rhetorical, but then, you also don't get to say that annihilation would not be just. In any case, you talk about God's perfect justice, but mercy is a BIG part of that, which seems to be overlooked.

LOL! Okay, in order:

• Was I to read your mind about what the "second" may or may not have been? I guess what you're saying here is either that you're not conflating anything, or just not speaking to the second. If the former, well, yes you are, but if the latter, okay that's pretty much the problem.

• My question was rhetorical, really, because I knew you would agree that we don't get any input on what God is just or otherwise in doing.

• I have never said annihilation would not be just. Just wrong. And I have been clear why this is so. I would submit to you that annihilation is totally antithetical to the very Scriptural statement that God is love. Murder is against God's Law, right? Yes, that's a rhetorical question...

• No one is overlooking God's mercy. You're right that it is "a BIG part of that," but God will not compromise His justice for the sake of His mercy, which I've said several times before. Regardless of how merciful God is, the wages of sin is still ~ uncompromisingly ~ death, which which I know you agree. So, as with... well, another poster (several others, actually), it gets back around to what this death really is.

Granted, we do have some say in how we are judged (if we are judged), because as Christ said, "By the measure you use it will be used against you." Such as be merciful and mercy will be shown you. Forgive and you will be forgiven. Judge not and you will not be judged.

You know, perhaps I am misunderstanding you here, but no, God is absolutely sovereign over His creation (and us as a part of it). All will be judged, believer or otherwise, and no one has any "say" in how or whether or not we will be judged. Quoting from Paul, "He will render to each one according to (our) works" (Romans 2:6), or judged "according to what (each will have) done (Revelation 20:13-14). God sets the standard. And Christ ~ you're referring to Luke 6:37, I presume ~ is talking about measure of judgment (in the sense of condemnation), mercy, and forgiveness. And as we see in that passage in verse 20, He is speaking directly to His disciples (and by extension us ~ all believers).

I'll leave it at that, but just add ~ yet again ~ that what happens to folks in hell is only the result of God's action of judgment.

In the version of hell that you are presenting, yes, I understand that. But even that is not necessary. Serves no point or purpose.

Well, good that you understand, but that it is "not necessary" and/or "serves no point or purpose" is your opinion. God's punishment of sin is absolutely necessary, and the reason it is necessary is to satisfy His justice, which He will not compromise. The wages of sin, death, must be paid. God's justice demands it. He is a God of justice, and He faithfully brings it forth.

See, you do make claims about what God's justice demands, and so I will repeat that you have never been able to show that even your version eternal punishment (eternal conscious existence in 'hell') is needed to satisfy His justice.

Sigh. God has said, "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 6:23). So, unquestionably ~ and I think we both agree on this ~ death is the consequence of sin. The only question, then, is "By whom is this debt paid?" What satisfies God's justice is the payment of this debt. For believers, the answer is "Christ," Who has satisfied this debt to the Father and thus the Father's justice on our behalf by His death on the cross. For unbelievers, the answer is, "Themselves, in the judgment to the second death." Whatever the true nature of this second death is is not what satisfies God's justice, but only ~ for unbelievers ~ the judgment and condemnation to it.

Therefore, I have never tried to show that eternal conscious existence in 'hell' is needed to satisfy God's justice, because there is no need. The disagreement between us (and others) is and has always been what this death -- the second death -- actually entails. If you want to still say, "You have never been able to show that even your version eternal punishment (eternal conscious existence in 'hell') is needed to satisfy His justice," then I will turn that right back around to you and say, "You have never been able to show that your version of eternal punishment (annihilation) is needed to satisfy His justice." But both questions are misdirected for the same reason. We agree ~ indeed we have never disagreed ~ that the punishment is eternal, and that that eternal punishment, whatever it entails, is the result of His final judgment.

If we are not self-sustaining, does that not open the door to the understanding that we can indeed cease to be?

It shouldn't. The temporal and the eternal are two different things, which necessarily means temporal existence and eternal existence are two different things. What He created to exist in the temporal He will not, regarding eternity, wipe from existence or annihilate. To what you say here, 'self-sustaining' works, but maybe the more appropriate word to use there would be 'self-existing'... meaning we were/are created, the creature, as opposed to the One who creates, the Creator. We have a beginning, whereas the Creator does not. But like the Creator, we will not cease to be.

I'm not taking things beyond the scope of the conversation, I am pointing out a flaw in your reasoning. If everything created good does not exist forever, then something being created good cannot mean that is must live forever. Especially considering that although created good, man corrupted himself and creation (subjecting it and his offspring to sin and death).

Well, you are taking things beyond the scope of the conversation, because we are (we were anyway) talking about us... people. There is no "flaw" in my reasoning, you disagree with it, which is fine with me. As for your, "if," that's a big 'if,' Tammy, is it not? We all exist forever, but the state of our existence is not the same.

The point is to remain in His word, and follow His teaching.

Agreed. We disagree on which one of us is not doing that.

In any case, I was wondering if you could provide a direct statement from Christ on the matter, but I take it you cannot.

Fine, and I wondered if you could provide a direct statement from Christ that supports what you're saying, and I take it you cannot. Again, you may think you can, and if so I would welcome the chance to clarify whatever you might cite.

Surely, if you do a word search of 'eternal' in any good concordance, most all the references will be to eternal life, such as "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life" and like passages. But you will probably recall what I have said in the past regarding what Jesus did and did not say to the men crucified with Jesus on His right and His left, respectively, regarding paradise. He told the man on His right that he would be with Him (Jesus) in paradise that day, but said nothing to the man on His left, and that cannot be interpreted to mean "You will be annihilated or will no longer exist," but only that "You will not be with me in paradise," and even that "You will be somewhere else other than in paradise with Me."

That is an assumption. He said one thing to the man who showed Him kindness, and nothing to the other man. That just tells us that the one man is for sure going to be with Christ in Paradise.

It's not an assumption, it's a very clear implication. What's happening here on the cross(es) is a very clear correlation to the judgment itself, which Jesus Himself shows in Matthew 25:31-46 regarding those on His right and those on His left, a crystal clear parallel with the man crucified on His right and the man crucified on His left. You will not allow that, but it is what it is.

Aside from all that, I would, though, cite Ecclesiastes 3:11, where the writer (and ultimately God) says that God has put eternity into man's heart.

Why would that not mean that God has given men the hope, desire, yearning for eternity? That it is something men might strive toward, hope for, desire? Since it has to do with the heart?

Well it does, for sure. And each gets what he desires. That's the point.

What specifically in Rev 20:4-6 shows that the first resurrection will continue to happen on an individual basis throughout this age, these last days (before Christ returns)?

Well, the three verses together, as I said, but even more specifically, "They came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years," which is perfectly clear on its own,

I can also support the straightforward reading of Revelation with 1Corinth 15:23, which refers to people being made alive in Christ, when He returns: "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each in his own turn: Christ the firstfruits; then at His coming, those who belong to Him.

Then was Paul merely mistaken when he said, in Ephesians 2, "...God... even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ..."? And was Peter merely mistaken when he said, in 1 Peter 1, "God... has caused us to be born again to a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead..."? I mean, they're both speaking in the past tense here to Christians... The answer to both questions, of course, is a resounding no, especially in view of what God says through Paul in 2 Timothy 3:16, that "(a)ll Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." My understanding allows me to support both Paul in Ephesians 2 and Peter in 1 Peter 1, in addition to what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15. This is the "new and not yet" of the Gospel ~ now in part, but when Christ returns, in full.

In one place he is referring to the resurrection. In the other place he is referring to something else, such as the promise, that names are already written in heaven, as good as done I think you have called it.

In 1 Corinthians 15, he is referring to what will certainly happen at Christ's coming, for sure. You agree with that. But in Ephesians 2 and 1 Peter 1, Paul and Peter (respectively) are clearly and indisputably talking about something that has already happened in the lives of believers. And what they are saying there clearly corresponds with what Christ is telling Nicodemus in John 3.

A question: who would the dead be from Revelation when it states 'the rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were over'? How can 'the rest of the dead' be referring to Christians when (all) Christians came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years? The REST OF the dead can only refer to those who did not come to life and reign with Christ a thousand years.

I'm sorry if you find the following example simplistic, but I am trying for something straightforward and easy: If I said, "I made the coffee from the cupboard. The rest of the coffee is in the freezer"... obviously the 'rest of' the coffee cannot be referring to the coffee from the cupboard. It is the same thing here, the rest of the dead cannot be referring to those who take part in the first resurrection. So who are the rest of the dead who come to life at the end of the thousand years?

The "rest of the dead" of verse 5 is clearly contrasted with those who "came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" of verse 4. They are two different groups of people. You agree with that, obviously. In contrast to how you read that:

1. Some believe that there will be some who are converted ~ born again of the Spirit ~ right at the time of Christ's return (or momentarily before).

2. And some believe that the first group, those beheaded for the testimony of Jesus and for the word of God, refers to martyrs for the faith, especially the apostles, who all died a very violent death for their testimony (John and Paul were beheaded and Peter was crucified upside down, for example) and the others are all others who became Christians since Pentecost. I'm of this second camp. Verse 5, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended" can also be plausibly read as the rest of the dead individually coming to life over the course of the thousand years; that does not contradict the understanding that the group as a whole does not come to life until the thousand years are ended.

In either case, though, the "first resurrection" at the end of verse 5 envelops both groups of people, those referred to in verse 4 and those referred to in verse 5... all these are "blessed and holy (because each one, from both groups of people) shares in the first resurrection."

Hey, I understand how one can look at "(t)hey came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" and regard it as a statement only applicable to the future, but that is a misunderstanding, even a plausible understanding. But even if one remains in that mindset, he or she has to say, honestly, that that can indeed refer to the present and something that is happening and will continue to happen over the thousand years

And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

They were beheaded (even if that is symbolic) for their testimony about Christ, and after this (after their testimony to Christ), they came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. Were they not Christian when they were giving their testimony to Christ, when they were beheaded for giving their testimony to Christ?

Ah, so here again we have the false premise of future only. As I have said, Revelation is a series of histories. So John is actually being "shown" what is happening over a span of time, as I've said, from Pentecost to Christ's return.

Much, much more so, actually, if one considers that little sentence as a whole, that they came to life AND reigned with Christ for a thousand years, rather than merely, that they reigned with Christ for a thousand years. I mean, if one reads "(t)hey came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years" in the way you propagate, that sort of begs the ridiculous question that, did each person in the group referred to as "they" come to life again and again and again over the thousand years? Well of course not; that's a ridiculous thought.

I don't understand why you would draw that inference.

Okay, well, give it a try. It's not hard... Or at least, try again...

They came to life (one time occurrence) and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

Nope. I mean, yes, it's a one-time occurrence in the lives of each individual believer, yes, in their lifetimes. But not everyone is saved at the same time, so it's not a one time occurrence in the sense of "everybody at once." It's been happening to individuals, each at his or her appointed time, for quite a long time, now. Again, what you say is plausible ~ I readily acknowledge that ~ but what I am saying is also just as plausible, and I think you have to acknowledge that. I think you will agree, though, that plausibility does not automatically mean correctness.

Just because something is generally believed, does not make it true. Just because something is traditionally accepted, does not make it true.

Right, but we're really talking about -- or should be, anyway -- the Holy Spirit working in people's hearts and maintaining the integrity of God's Word. If we understand that as it should be, then "what is generally believed" and therefore "what is orthodox" take on a much bigger and higher meaning.

What bigger and higher meaning?

Tammy, come on. All I'm saying here (although it is no mere thing) is what I've said before, that the Holy Spirit not only wrote the Word of the Father ~ through the centuries, through various men, of course ~ but has maintained the integrity of His word since then and worked in the hearts of God's elect. So we can infer that orthodox Christians ~ those who subscribe to what has been through the centuries and still is generally believed regarding Scripture is right, not because people are right (because people are not inerrant or infallible, certainly) but because the Holy Spirit is.

You understand that not everyone who claims to be Christian, is Christian (indeed many are not, since Christ said that many would say to him, "Lord, Lord", but that He would reply that He never knew them)... and that includes religious leaders.

Certainly.

If there is no holy spirit working in them, what would that say for the doctrines they espouse?

God (and His Holy Spirit) can use even the Father's enemies to accomplish His purposes, can He not? Indeed, God works all things together for the good of those who love Him and are called according to His purpose (Romans 8:28).

Peace again to you, Pinseeker,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

The very same to you, Tammy. Grace and peace to you.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #103]

Checkpoint wrote:( ↑Thu Aug 19, 2021 2:31 am)
One of these is what "death" is and is not, in the Bible. The problem is, the Bible talks of more than one death; in fact there are three. Spiritual death, physical death, and the Second Death. So the obvious questions that arise are, why is this so, and does "death" mean the same in each, or are there differences?

Pinseeker wrote:
Okay, sure, agreed, at least sort of. I would say two, really. I mean, we will all agree, I'm sure, that the Bible never mentions a third death. Only a first and second. You know, come to think of it, maybe this would have been a good place to focus any of these discussions. I mean I know we talked about it at least a little bit through these three threads and others, too. But:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. What would you offer as a definition for the three (spiritual death, physical death, second death)?

2. What is the sequence of the three in the course of a person's life/existence? And, relatedly, when do the three possibly happen to a person?

3. With regard to the second death, how do you understand the term 'second'?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would start into that myself, but I would like to hear your comments first. Grace and peace to you!

Okay then.

1. Spiritual death is the complete absence of any spiritual life.
Physical death is the complete absence of any physical life.
The Second Death is the complete absence of any life; of any kind whatsoever.

2. The course of the three deaths, and their possible avoidance by any human, are and will be according to what and who God has appointed, and how one personally responds to their situation.

Scripture spells this out clearly.

3. I understand the term "Second" as confirming that spiritual and physical death belong together as the one appointed death, which exists until the Judgment. Hebrews 9:27.

Both, after all, are the result of the first transgression of the two transgressors.

Blessings.