post-mortem punishment [Archive]

thelasttrumpet

16th February 2008, 04:41 PM

Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. John 5:28-29

Oh, snap! I forgot these verses were in the Bible! (Just kidding, of course).

I’m afraid that these verses aren’t going to help you, Mikey. First of all, why didn’t you include verse 25? Is it because you realized this verse completely invalidated your argument that Christ is talking about punishment after literal death? I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn’t realize the connection between these verses. But here is verse 25: “Truly, truly, I say to you, an hour is coming, and is NOW HERE, when the DEAD will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear WILL LIVE.”

Notice how Christ links the then-future "resurrection” of people out of their “tombs” (v. 28) with the then-present (and future) “resurrection” of those who are said to be “dead” (v. 25). Do you think those of whom Christ speaks (those who were passing “from death to life” in response to hearing his voice at that time – see verse 24) were literally dead? They weren’t. The “death” in view in vv. 24-25 is a figurative death (what some refer to as “spiritual death”). In verses 28-29, Christ is simply building off of this already-established metaphor, and referring to the consummation of this spiritual “resurrection” that had already begun to take place due to the proclamation of the Gospel.

In verse 27, Christ is referring to that which was yet future when he says "the hour is coming,” and to that which was still present when he says “and is now here..." He says "and is now here" because this spiritual resurrection had already begun taking place, and was to continue and culminate at a yet-future time. Throughout John's gospel, the phrase “an hour is coming” refers to a time that was in the not-too-distant future (see John 4:21, 23; 16:2, 4, 25 and 32). This phrase has reference to the time of “great tribulation” leading up to, and climaxing in, the overthrow of the Jewish nation in 70 AD. Jesus adds “the hour is now here” because what he was referring to had already begun, and would continue until, and culminate in, the hour that was still "coming" (which, by the time John wrote his first epistle, had already drawn near – see 1 John 2:18).

If you understand these verses literally, however, then they actually prove too much. If "all who are in the tombs" (v. 28) refers to literal tombs, then Christ would be saying that only those who are in literal tombs will be raised; he doesn’t say anyone else will be. What about all the literal dead who weren’t placed in tombs? What about all the dead who weren’t buried at all? Sorry, but a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words in vv. 27-28 is absurd, and completely disregards the immediate context. The “dead” of whom Christ is speaking are not literally dead (no more so than the “dead” of which Peter speaks in 1 Pet 4:6), nor are the “tombs” literal tombs (no more so than the “graves” of which we read in Ezekiel chapter 37, when God declares, “Behold, I will open your graves and raise you from your graves, O my people…”).

So what is Christ talking about in vv. 28-29? The “coming out of the tombs” of which Christ speaks was a spiritual awakening of many of the people of Israel to the life of the Gospel, due to its concurrent proclamation and acceptance during that time (again, see John 5:24). This "resurrection" to new life from out of spiritual death (cf. Eph 2:1, 5-6) continued throughout the ministry of the apostles, even up until the time when the city of Jerusalem and the Temple were destroyed by the Romans (something that was greatly feared by the Jewish leaders at that time – see John 11:48-50). Among those who believed the Gospel, some (many, in fact – see John 12:42-43) did not confess their belief for fear of what others would think, and because they didn’t want to be “put out of the synagogue.” Thus, they were indeed awakened to the new life of the Gospel, but they either remained “closet believers” or ultimately “fell away” from the truth of the Gospel and returned to their former way of life (see Heb 2:3, 6:4-8; 10:26-29; John 8:30-33, 37, 44; 2 Pet 2:20-22; etc.). When God’s wrath fell upon that guilty nation to the uttermost in 70 AD, those who “did evil” by falling away from their faith after having been resurrected to new life when they believed the Gospel (or those who never confessed their faith in the first place) were ultimately judged along with those who’d never believed, and either perished in the overthrow of their nation, or were led into captivity. Thus, these came forth to “the resurrection of judgment,” while those believers who endured in their faith until the end came forth to “the resurrection of life” (for they were spared from that awful judgment).

Blessings,
Aaron

heymikey80

16th February 2008, 05:39 PM

I don't have a reason to ignore the prior verse. There's just no reason for sophistry and false dichotomy in trying to force a difference in where there is none.

Jesus is near tombs. He's saying those in the tombs will emerge, resurrected (Gk: "stood up"), alive.

But He's not saying this solely about the tombs he happens to be looking at.

It's not limited to people in tombs, either. Jesus was teaching. He's making a visible allusion. He was pointing out the visible reality of the tombs around Him.

But the sea also gives up its dead. So do the four winds.

Who was once alive and died, are alive again.

Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. John 5:28-29

So evil people died; they are raised again; they are judged for their evil.

heymikey80

16th February 2008, 05:44 PM

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Dn 12:2

thelasttrumpet

17th February 2008, 10:04 PM

I don't have a reason to ignore the prior verse. There's just no reason for sophistry and false dichotomy in trying to force a difference in where there is none.

Sophistry? I beg your pardon; it’s called “exegesis.”

Jesus is near tombs. He's saying those in the tombs will emerge, resurrected (Gk: "stood up"), alive.

He’s near dead people, too. So does that mean the “dead” of whom he speaks in vv. 24-25 are literally dead? Were physically dead people believing on him and literally passing “from death to life” in verse 24? Was Jesus talking about physically dead people hearing his voice and coming to life in verse 25? Does Jesus "happen to be looking at" dead people as he's saying this?

“Resurrected,” and related words, need not be understood literally (that is, as meaning "being raised from physical death to physical life"). Such words can be used in other senses as well. Surely you’re aware of this. Or would you like some examples?

But He's not saying this solely about the tombs he happens to be looking at.

It's not limited to people in tombs, either. Jesus was teaching. He's making a visible allusion. He was pointing out the visible reality of the tombs around Him.

Jesus was teaching, yes. And Jesus often used figurative language when doing so.

As I’m sure you’re aware, there is only one literal meaning of “dead” and “death.” But these terms are often used in a non-literal, figurative sense to signify national/moral/spiritual states that are like “death” - of which “death” and “dead” are appropriate metaphors. Likewise, “tombs” and “graves” can be used in the same sort of sense. While it is true that sometimes Jesus is talking about literal death, I believe it is clear that he is using “death,” “dead” and “tombs” in a figurative sense in this chapter from John.

You, however, have absolutely no proof that Jesus switches from talking about figurative death and resurrection in vv. 24-25 to literal death and resurrection in vv. 28-29. Not only do you assume (for no contextual reason) that he is changing subjects (and that without him giving any such indication of doing so), you further assume that "he's not saying this soley about the tombs he happens to be looking at" and that "it's not limited to people in tombs either." And how do you know this? Does your version of the Bible have extra inspired notes in it? How do you even know he "happens to be looking at tombs" at all? You don't. It's all assumption on your part. Does Jesus "happen to be looking at" dead people in vv. 24-25?

Here's the deal, Mikey: If you can explain to me the reason why you and every other sensible reader of the Bible believes that Jesus is not talking about literal death and literal dead people in verses 24 and 25, I'm pretty sure you will have explained why I believe that Jesus is not talking about literal tombs in verse 28. :)

But the sea also gives up its dead. So do the four winds.

I believe what John says about the sea giving up its dead - just not in the same literal way you understand it. I expound on what I think John’s language means in the posts to which I referred you in the other thread (posts 34-36, I believe, in the "Universal Salvation" thread).

So, please explain to me what you think John is saying when he tells us that the sea, death and hades give up the dead which are in them, since you understand this to be literal. Are some literally dead people in "death," some literally dead people in "hades," and some literally dead people in "the sea," before these three give them up to be judged?

Also, where does it say the “four winds” give up its dead? If you’re referring to Matthew 24:31, where does it say anything about the elect being dead, or being raised to an immortal existence? If this is the verse you have in mind, I deny that it has anything to do with any kind of resurrection at all, whether literal or figurative, and demand proof of the contrary. As I've been saying, the literal, immortal resurrection (when death is destroyed/swallowed up in victory) isn't to take place until right before Christ delivers the kingdom back to God. This verse in Matthew 24, however, is describing something that takes place at the commencement of Christ's reign (when he came in his kingdom), not at the end of his reign.

Who was once alive and died, are alive again.

Sounds like what the father said about the “prodigal son” in Jesus’ parable. Do you think he was literally dead, too?

Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. John 5:28-29

So evil people died; they are raised again; they are judged for their evil.

You have not yet proven that this is even a literal resurrection. Such an understanding flies in the face of the context. All you have done is made baseless assumptions.

As for "evil people" being "dead" and then being "raised" -- before Paul came to faith, he was an "evil person" who was alive once (Rom 7:9), but then died (Rom 7:9-11), and, like all unbelievers, was dead in his trespasses and sins (Eph 2:1). And then he was raised to new life by God (v. 4-6). But, as I demonstrated in my last post, some who tasted of this "new life" after believing on Christ subsequently fell back into unbelief (those whom Jude describes as being "twice dead" - Jude 12) and were consequently judged for their evil works when their guilty nation died its "second death" in 70 AD.

Blessings,
Aaron

bradfordl

18th February 2008, 09:59 AM

Utter nonsense, Aaron. Hope you aren't engaging in such stupendous acts of mental gymnastics without a safety net.

Sophistry? I beg your pardon; it’s called “exegesis.”

No, the proper term is eisegesis, and its not even barely convincing eisegesis.

thelasttrumpet

18th February 2008, 10:08 AM

And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Dn 12:2

This verse is the OT parallel to the ones we've been discussing from John 5.

The timeframe for when this “awakening” was to take place is fixed by the surrounding context. It is said to take place during a “time of trouble” for Daniel’s people (i.e., the Jews), when everyone among his people whose names were found written in the book were “delivered” (Daniel 12:1). Employing hyperbolic language that was common among the Jewish people, Christ speaks of this as taking place at the time of Jerusalem’s destruction: "For then shall there be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be" (Matt 24:21; cf. Luke 21:20-23). Christ also told his disciples, “By your endurance you will gain your lives” (Luke 21:10; cf. Matt 24:13). Only those Jews who believed on Christ and heeded his words to flee to the mountains when the time came (Luke 21:21; cf. Matt 24:15-18) were delivered from the awful judgment that fell upon the unfaithful Jewish natin at this time.

It is also said to take place during the time when the “daily sacrifice” would be “taken away,” and the “abomination that makes desolate” would be set up (Daniel 11:31, 12:11; cf. 9:26-27). In Matthew 24:15, 21 (cf. Luke 21:20) Jesus quotes Daniel and refers the language to those events surrounding Jerusalem’s destruction, when the Roman armies began to surround the city. This was the sign of the imminent desolation of the city and temple. The Jewish historian Josephus records that the Roman commander Cestius Gailus (Nero’s predecessor) began enclosing Jerusalem in AD 67. Then, "without any reason in the world" he withdrew his troops from around the city (Josephus, Wars 2.19.7). Alert Christians would’ve recognized this as the prophesied signal for which they’d waited, and would have used this time to flee the city. It seems that God, in his mercy, also provided one final opportunity for believers to escape the approaching desolation of their city. A year later, in AD 68, generals Vespasian and Titus “had fortified all the places round about Jerusalem...encompassing the city round about on all sides" (Josephus, Wars 4.9.1). But when Vespasian and Titus were "informed that Nero was dead" (4.9.2), they "did not go on with their expedition against the Jews" (4.9.2; cf. 4.10.2) until after Vespasian became emperor in 69. Then "Vespasian turned his thoughts to what remained unsubdued in Judea" (4.10.5).

Finally, we read that the time when all the things of which Gabriel spoke would be finished was when the “power of the holy people” was “shattered.” Again, this is a clear reference to the second and final overthrow of the Jewish nation by the Romans in 70 AD.

What of the “awakening” of those who “sleep” that was said to take place at this time? The language of the text does not at all demand a literal interpretation. Consider the following: It was not uncommon among the Hebrew people to use the word “sleep” to represent a state of spiritual stupor or sloth from which an individual or nation was called to “awaken” (Isaiah 29:10, 51:17, 52:1, 60:1; Rom 13:11; 1 Cor 15:34; Ephesians 5:14; 1 Thess 5:4-6). Similarly, “dust” often signifies a low, subjected or degraded condition (Gen 3:14; Psalm 44:25; Isaiah 25:12, 26:5, 29:4; Nahum 3:18), with deliverance from this condition being spoken of as being raised from the dust, shaking oneself from the dust, or awakening from the dust (1 Sam 2:8; 1 Kings 16:2; Psalm 113:7; Isaiah 26:5, 19; 52:2).

And, as we’ve been discussing, the Hebrew word olam (which is the Hebrew equivalent of the Greek words aion and its adjective, aionios) is a relative term, and denotes a time period of indefinite duration in this world, not endless duration in “eternity.” By now, I doubt you need more examples from the OT that this is the case. While the duration signified by olam is continuous and uninterrupted as long as it lasts, it is never endless in an absolute sense. All duration expressed by olam is limited; not even the longest period expressed by olam extends beyond this temporal world. In light of this usage of olam in the Old Testament, there is no justification for understanding either the “life” or the “shame and contempt” of Daniel 12:2 (and by extension, the “life” and “punishment” of Matthew 25:46) as being endless in an absolute sense, and referring to anyone’s experience in the immortal state.

Finally, the “life olam” (or aionion life) of Daniel 12:2 is nowhere spoken of in the New Testament as being a post-mortem blessing for anyone. Instead, it is spoken of as something that one can possess and enjoy in this life (see John 3:36, 6:47; 1 John 3:15, 5:11-13, etc.). In John 17:3, Jesus speaks of this life in the following way: “And this is aionion life: that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.”

thelasttrumpet

18th February 2008, 10:21 AM

Utter nonsense, Aaron. Hope you aren't engaging in such stupendous acts of mental gymnastics without a safety net.

Quote:
Sophistry? I beg your pardon; it’s called “exegesis.”

No, the proper term is eisegesis, and its not even barely convincing eisegesis

Since you include nothing with which to substantiate the baseless assertions you make above - and offer nothing of value to contribute to this discussion - perhaps it would be wise to simply keep your opinions to yourself. And, yes, that's all they are: your own opinions, utterly devoid of scriptural reasoning to back them up.

bradfordl

18th February 2008, 11:23 AM

Since you include nothing with which to substantiate the baseless assertions you make above - and offer nothing of value to contribute to this discussion - perhaps it would be wise to simply keep your opinions to yourself. And, yes, that's all they are: your own opinions, utterly devoid of scriptural reasoning to back them up.
Others here have profusely and patiently refuted your convoluted misrepresentations of the meanings of words in scripture, and their efforts have been wasted on ears deafened by their owner's infatuation with a heresy. Why would I want to add more wasted verbage to the pile already at your feet? But to accomodate, here are a few scriptures for you to ruminate upon:

Tit 3:9-11 But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain. (10) A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject; (11) Knowing that he that is such is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself.

Tit 1:6-16 If any be blameless, the husband of one wife, having faithful children not accused of riot or unruly. (7) For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not given to filthy lucre; (8) But a lover of hospitality, a lover of good men, sober, just, holy, temperate; (9) Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers. (10) For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision: (11) Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake. (12) One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, The Cretians are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. (13) This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith; (14) Not giving heed to Jewish fables, and commandments of men, that turn from the truth. (15) Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled. (16) They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

2Jn 1:8-11 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward. (9) Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. (10) If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed: (11) For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.

And especially for you:

2Ti 2:14-18 Of these things put them in remembrance, charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. (15) Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth. (16) But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness. (17) And their word will eat as doth a canker: of whom is Hymenaeus and Philetus; (18) Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already; and overthrow the faith of some.

thelasttrumpet

18th February 2008, 01:26 PM

Others here have profusely and patiently refuted your convoluted misrepresentations of the meanings of words in scripture, and their efforts have been wasted on ears deafened by their owner's infatuation with a heresy. Why would I want to add more wasted verbage to the pile already at your feet?

bradfordl,

Again, that is completely your own opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. But frankly, it's all fluff and no substance. Instead of just ducking in and out to throw a few twigs on the fire, maybe you could at least attempt to shed some more light on the subject. Show me how the arguments which your Calvinist comrades have provided are more consistent with what scripture teaches than my own. Do something constructive, instead of just popping in and making a couple of cheap shots. If your intention is not to engage in rational debate like Mikey, then what are you doing posting here? There are plenty of other threads for you to visit.

Moreover, I could just as easily retort that you're the one who is in error, and that I have just as patiently refuted the "convoluted misrepresentations of the meanings of words in scripture" that the Calvinists on this forum have been presenting as their "arguments." Insofar as it includes the doctrine of endless torment, I think the Reformed doctrine is just as heretical as the Roman Catholic doctrine (and the RCC has a much longer and well-established tradition than your own). But I'm not here to burn anyone at the stake for being what my own tradition would style a "heretic." I'm here to debate the meaning of scripture with those who are willing to discuss. I find your "hit-and-run" posting tactics completely counter-productive to this discussion, and in very poor taste.

And as far as the first three scripture passages you provided, I don't think a response to them is deserved or required. Regarding the last passage (which you said was "especially" for me), you seem to be implying that, like Hymenaeus and Philetus, I too am teaching that the literal resurrection of the dead is past already. However, I am doing no such thing. The only "resurrection" that is now past was no more literal than the passing from "death to life" that Christ talks about in John 5:24-25. The "hour" which Christ said was then coming, has since passed.

But, I have HOPE in God that there will be a resurrection both of the just and the unjust (Acts 24:15), because I know that this resurrection will result in all people being subjected to Christ (Phil 3:21), and in God becoming "ALL IN ALL" (1 Cor 15:28). Do you have this hope as well? Or do you hope that you will be raised to a state of endless blessing, while others will be raised to a state of endless suffering? Is that what you think Paul was hoping for? Is that what you're hoping for?

bradfordl

18th February 2008, 04:54 PM

(blah, blah blah)...Is that what you're hoping for?
My hope lies in the promises of my God and Savior, Jesus Christ. What those promises are is where we differ. I believe what the scriptures say, rather than attempt to twist them to say something they don't just because my infintessimal human mind wants them to say it. God is far wiser than I am. I have this idea that He should have created a lovely chocolate milk lake just for me to drink out of, but He didn't. For me to decide that was just unfair of Him, and to try then to completely flip scripture on its head to prove that He did is not just stupid. When I start trying to convince others of this wackiness, I've crossed over into false shepherd territory, the flat and mean land of heresy, and am guilty of attempting to harm the flock of the True Shepherd, which is an unhappy position to be in. Just because i think a chocolate milk lake is an admirable and good thing (and its not of a necessity wrong), doesn't mean that God must agree and create one, nor must scriptures secretly say He did. And it doesn't make you a bad guy for disagreeing that the scriptures say there is a chocolate milk lake no matter how great an idea I think it is.

Your chocolate milk lake, universalism, may seem like a fine idea to you, but scripture shows God does not agree, no matter how acrobatic you are in your eisegesis. And attempting to convince others of such a heresy makes you.... well if the shoe fits, walks and talks like a duck & etc.... you get the drift i'm sure.

You want scripture, and you've been buried by it in this and other threads, but it has no effect. You have read all the scripture that pertains, and have studied hard all the various universalist "refutations", and spout them reflexively. You stubbornly refuse to hear the truth, so what's the point?

My hope is in Christ alone, not in my imaginations of what should be. Since I have that hope, I fall into one of two groups described here:

Eph 2:10-13 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them. (11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands; (12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: (13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
If universalism is true, why would the apostle be making a distinction between those who have hope and those who have none? And who are these guys?:

Php 3:18-19 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: (19) Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)
And these?:

2Th 1:6-10 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; (7) And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, (8) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: (9) Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; (10) When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.
Now we'll all sit back and let you tell us what the Holy Spirit really meant.

heymikey80

18th February 2008, 07:22 PM

He’s near dead people, too. So does that mean the “dead” of whom he speaks in vv. 24-25 are literally dead?
It's always useful to check out the context of a verse before trying to apply it this way.

The immediate context of this verse in Jesus' teaching is judgment. The judgment of God is death for those who don't believe, and eternal life for those who do believe. It's no surprise Jesus would say that turning and believing is equivalent to passing from death to life. Those are the judgments He is handing down, and God will execute those judgments with exacting precision.

Jesus is distinguishing physical resurrection from His spiritual judgment. For spiritual: "an hour is coming, and is now here" (:25); for physical, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out" (:28-29a). That's physical. And clearly when Jesus says physical things, physical things are appointed to happen. The physical resurrection isn't simply "of life" -- but it's also "of judgment".

What intrigues me is that you think someone can be "non-physically resurrected to judgment". Which is a pretty heady claim. That's sophistry. You have no basis on which to stand here. You know they're not alive, spiritually. On what basis are such people "resurrected"?He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. Rom 2:6-11
You've no cause to think of a dead man enduring or being in tribulation; receiving wrath and fury; in distress. Yet you claim those who aren't alive won't receive these things. I could only conclude that you think such things happen to people in this physical life, which I would say is absurd. Plenty of mass murderers have gone to their graves without a moment's inconvenience. Plus, the context of Paul's statement shows how hollow this assertion is:For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Rom 2:12-16
The day when men are judged is in the future. That day is a day of wrath.

You really have to stand each of these points on its head to force the view you're proposing.Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. Mt 10:15

And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you. Mt 11:23-24

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak ... The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.Mt 12:36, 41-42

heymikey80

18th February 2008, 08:04 PM

We are not in the eternal state. The Last Day has not occurred. No one saw Jesus descending on the clouds -- and Jesus said everyone would, and everyone would know. Full preterism suppresses the distinction Jesus makes between Jerusalem and the People of God. "All these are but the beginning of the birth pains." Mt 24:8 They would see the Last Day in microcosm, and Jesus said as much. But there's a Last Day of Judgment to come, and there mankind shall be judged, and grace, life, and punishment will be given out from the Throne.

thelasttrumpet

20th February 2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:
(blah, blah blah)...Is that what you're hoping for?

“Blah, blah blah?” Is this how you normally communicate with people with whom you disagree?

My hope lies in the promises of my God and Savior, Jesus Christ. What those promises are is where we differ. I believe what the scriptures say, rather than attempt to twist them to say something they don't just because my infintessimal human mind wants them to say it.

My hope is “set on the Living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe” (1 Tim 4:10). I'd be interested in your comment on this verse. Do you think Paul is saying that God is the Savior of "all people" without his actually saving them? Perhaps your "infinitesimal human mind" would have preferred that Paul wrote, "God is the Savior exclusively of those who believe."

I have this idea that He should have created a lovely chocolate milk lake just for me to drink out of, but He didn't...

I could just as easily argue that the doctrine of endless blessing for yourself and a relatively small number of others, and endless misery for everyone else, is just as much a “chocolate milk lake” fantasy that you would very much like to be true, but that simply isn’t taught in Scripture. You can twist scriptures all you want in order to read your chocolate milk lake partialist 'fantasy' into the Bible, but the truth is, the Bible clearly teaches that God is the Savior of all people. This truth is taught both explicitly and implicitly throughout scripture. The doctrine of “endless torment,” however, is taught nowhere. Neither the Hebrew olam nor the Greek aion/aionion means “endless” anywhere in the entirety of the Bible. In every example in which these words are found, they pertain to the experience of mortal humans - and of God’s involvement and interactions with them - in this temporal world. The idea of “endlessness” is never once connected with punishment or torment of any kind. The only terms from which the idea of “endlessness” can even be inferred are applied only to a state of blessing - never to a state of torment.

Your chocolate milk lake, universalism, may seem like a fine idea to you, but scripture shows God does not agree, no matter how acrobatic you are in your eisegesis. And attempting to convince others of such a heresy makes you.... well if the shoe fits, walks and talks like a duck & etc.... you get the drift i'm sure.

And to you I say: "Your chocolate milk lake, partialism, may seem like a fine idea to you, but scripture shows God does not agree, no matter how acrobatic you are in your eisegesis. And attempting to convince others of such a heresy makes you.... well if the shoe fits, walks and talks like a duck & etc....you get the drift I'm sure."

And once again, you are just as much a "heretic" according to my theological tradition as I am according to your own. We could go back and forth calling each other heretics (or simply insinuating it) 'til we're both blue in the face, but that's no way to debate.

You want scripture, and you've been buried by it in this and other threads, but it has no effect. You have read all the scripture that pertains, and have studied hard all the various universalist "refutations", and spout them reflexively. You stubbornly refuse to hear the truth, so what's the point?

And to you I say: "You want scripture, and you've been buried by it in this and other threads, but it has no effect. You have read all the scripture that pertains, and have studied hard all the various partialist "refutations", and spout them reflexively. You stubbornly refuse to hear the truth, so what's the point?"

My hope is in Christ alone, not in my imaginations of what should be.

Paul’s hope was in Christ as well. And it is for this reason that he had hope in God that there would be a resurrection of both the just and the unjust. I seriously don’t think you have the same hope that Paul had. Paul knew that, in the literal, immortal resurrection of the dead, all who have died in Adam will be "made alive in Christ" (1 Cor 15:22) to “bear the image of the man of heaven” (v. 49), and will thereby be subjected to Christ (v. 28) and included in the “all in all” which God is certain to become (v. 28).

Since I have that hope, I fall into one of two groups described here:
Quote:
Eph 2:10-13 ...(12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: (13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.

If universalism is true, why would the apostle be making a distinction between those who have hope and those who have none?

I'd have to say that you are one "without hope," since your "hope" is not the hope in God that Paul enjoyed. Rather, your "hope" seems to be similar to that of the unbelieving pagans (or even of the Pharisees, since they were partialists as well, and denied that God's grace embraced all people).

Moreover, how is this verse in any way inconsistent with universal salvation? Being “strangers from the covenants of promise,” such have no hope in God that they, and all people, are to be made alive in Christ after dying in Adam. As such, they are said to “grieve” as those who “have no hope” (1 Thess 4:13). The fact that they are without hope, however, doesn’t make their future resurrection in Christ any less certain. It just means they are in ignorance of this truth, and cannot enjoy the blessing that comes from believing that Christ tasted death for all, is Lord over all, and will one day draw and subject all to himself, so that God may be “all in all.” Until they believe the Gospel, such people have no hope that the fallen creation of which they form a part is to be “set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God” (Rom 8:21). But believers – those who, having believed the word of truth possess the “firstfruits of the Spirit” (v. 23) – do have this hope, and are said to be saved by it (v. 24). But this “deliverance from the bondage to corruption” is no less certain for the rest of fallen humanity than it is for those who have this hope. Similarly, the salvation of those who “hope in the living God” is no more certain to take place than that of the “all people” of whom believers form only a small part. While it is true that believers enjoy a special blessing in this life through faith in the truth (and thus God is said to be “especially” their Savior), the future salvation of everyone else is no less certain and secure than that of the believer's.

And who are these guys?:
Quote:
Php 3:18-19 (For many walk, of whom I have told you often, and now tell you even weeping, that they are the enemies of the cross of Christ: (19) Whose end is destruction, whose God is their belly, and whose glory is in their shame, who mind earthly things.)

“These guys” are simply the unrighteous people of Paul’s day who were doomed to destruction, just as the unrighteous people in the “days of Noah” were doomed to destruction (Luke 17:26-27), the unrighteous people of the “days of Lot” were doomed to destruction (Luke 17:28-29), and the unrighteous people who murdered our Lord were doomed to destruction (Matt 22:7). There is no good reason to understand the “destruction” in this verse to pertain to some existence other than this one. There is no good reason to understand the “destruction” in this verse as being anything other than a temporal destruction - just like every other example of “destruction” in Scripture. It seems like you’re simply trying to read your “chocolate milk lake” fantasy into Scripture again.

thelasttrumpet

20th February 2008, 11:09 AM

And these?:

Quote:
2Th 1:6-10 Seeing it is a righteous thing with God to recompense tribulation to them that trouble you; (7) And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, (8) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: (9) Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; (10) When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

You’re making it easy for me by including this passage, because Scripture tells us exactly who “these guys” are. We are told both in Acts 17:5-9 and in 1 Thess 2:14-16 that the principle persecutors of the Christians of Thessalonica were the unbelieving Jewish people. Furthermore, Christ tells us that these people (who were a part of his own generation) were to be repaid with tribulation for their works just a few years from the time of his earthly ministry (see, for example, Matt. 16:27-28; 23:36; 24:21, 34; Luke 21:20-24, etc.). Unless you wish to go beyond what the Bible says, and use your own vain imagination, no other persons than the Jews who troubled the Thessalonian believers had, or can have any part in, the punishment which Paul here describes.

What, then, is "the presence of the Lord?" In the Old Testament, “the presence of the Lord” is an expression denoting God's approbation (Gen 4:16; Ex. 33:14; Psalm 139:7-8; Jonah 1:3). The Jews considered the land of Judea especially, and particularly the temple, to be the place of God’s peculiar presence. Under the old covenant, the Shekinah that dwelt between the cherubim which overshadowed the Mercy Seat was considered the presence of the Lord, where God’s glory was especially manifest. Hence David exclaims, “Thou that dwellest between the cherubim, shine forth” (Psalm 80:1).

We are told that Jonah, after being commissioned by God to proclaim repentance to the Ninevites, “rose to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the Lord” (Jonah 1:3). In other words, he fled to where he supposed “the presence of the Lord” was not. In Jonah 2:4, we learn where he believed the presence of the Lord to be: “I am driven away from your sight; yet I shall look again upon your holy temple.” There dwelt “the presence of the Lord,” and there the glory of his power was uniquely displayed for the Jewish people.

God's presence, then, was enjoyed by the Jews in Judea, and especially in their temple service. Thus, to be “cast out of the Lord’s presence” was to be banished from Judea into captivity, and from all the covenant privileges and blessings that the Jews enjoyed in their land - especially temple worship. This “casting out” was the same as destroying them.In 2 Kings 13:23, we read: “But the LORD was gracious to them and had compassion on them, and he turned toward them, because of his covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and would not DESTROY THEM, nor has he CAST THEM FROM HIS PRESENCE until now.”

What God says he would not do to this people at this time, in the following passage we find that he does: “For because of the anger of the LORD it came to the point in Jerusalem and Judah that HE CAST THEM OUT FROM HIS PRESENCE” (2 Kings 24:20). The prophet Jeremiah had long before applied these very terms to them as a people, and to their sorrows in this world:

“Therefore, behold I, even I will utterly forget you, and I WILL FORSAKE YOU AND THE CITY THAT I GAVE YOU AND YOUR FATHERS, and CAST YOU OUT OF MY PRSENCE; and I will bring an EVERLASTING REPROACH upon you, and a perpetual shame, which shall not be forgotten” (Jer. 23:39-40; cf. Jer. 52:3).

They were thus “cast out of the Lord's presence” for seventy years during their captivity in Babylon, in that they were banished from their land and from their holy temple, where God’s presence was especially manifest. During this time, they were said to be utterly forgotten and forsaken by God, and under an “everlasting reproach” and a “perpetual shame” which would “not be forgotten.” But after 70 years, God "remembered them," and they were brought back from this captivity to once again enjoy God's presence in their own land, and in their temple service.

At the time Paul wrote to the Thessalonian believers, the time was quickly drawing near when the Jews, as a people, were to be again cast out of the Lord’s presence, and dispersed among all nations (Luke 21:20-24, 32). Paul adopts the very language of the above passages (used in speaking of their former destruction and captivity) to describe the judgment of God that awaited them - both in their being cast out of their land, and in their city and temple being utterly destroyed – which he describes as “everlasting destruction” from the presence of the Lord. This destruction from their land and temple was to be a second "death" for the nation of Israel (the Babylonian captivity is described as being the first).

Following the Roman siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, the Jews were just as certainly “destroyed from the presence of the Lord” as they were during their seventy years' captivity in Babylon. If the Scriptures are allowed to interpret themselves, Paul only describes the temporal destruction and banishment of the Jews in the very language by which the prophets before him had described their former punishments.

Blessings,
Aaron

thelasttrumpet

21st February 2008, 12:12 PM

Hi Mikey,

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet
He’s near dead people, too. So does that mean the “dead” of whom he speaks in vv. 24-25 are literally dead?

It's always useful to check out the context of a verse before trying to apply it this way.

The immediate context of this verse in Jesus' teaching is judgment. The judgment of God is death for those who don't believe, and eternal life for those who do believe.

Certainly. Except, “death” doesn’t mean “endless life in unending torments,” and “aionion life” doesn’t mean “endless life in heaven.” And you can’t prove otherwise, because the scriptural evidence – both Old and New Testament – is entirely against you. Again, all you can do is simply beg the question.

It's no surprise Jesus would say that turning and believing is equivalent to passing from death to life. Those are the judgments He is handing down, and God will execute those judgments with exacting precision.

It’s no surprise that Jesus would use the metaphors of “death” and “resurrection” to refer to different spiritual states, and then simply continue this already-established metaphor to refer to the then-yet-future event when both states would culminate in either blessing or condemnation at the end of the Jewish age, when Christ came in his kingdom.

Jesus is distinguishing physical resurrection from His spiritual judgment. For spiritual: "an hour is coming, and is now here" (:25); for physical, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out" (:28-29a). That's physical.

Completely unsupported assertions, with no proof at all. Your distinguishing between “spiritual” and “physical” is utterly arbitrary. This is pure eisegesis, Mikey. You have no more reason to see the second “resurrection” as physical than you do for seeing the first one as such. You have absolutely no good, scriptural reason for believing that Jesus switches from talking about spiritual resurrections to talking about physical resurrections. There is no indication at all that Jesus switches from using metaphorical language to speaking literally. All you’re doing is make assertions, with no regard as to the immediate or larger context. As I demonstrated in an earlier post, “an hour is coming” refers to a soon-approaching future time that came to pass before that generation passed away. Do you dispute this? Can you even provide ONE verse where this phrase is used to refer to some end-of-time event that is to take place thousands of years from the time the expression is uttered?

And clearly when Jesus says physical things, physical things are appointed to happen. The physical resurrection isn't simply "of life" -- but it's also "of judgment".

You can no more prove that the resurrection to “life” and “judgment” is physical than you can prove the physicality of the resurrection from death to life of which Christ speaks in verses 24 and 25. Jesus is using figurative language throughout.

Consider this: if the resurrection of which Christ is speaking here is a literal resurrection, it would be completely redundant to say that some come out of their “tombs” to “a resurrection OF LIFE.” If it’s a literal resurrection, of course they’re alive when they come out of their tombs! And those experiencing the “resurrection of judgment” would be just as alive as the other group. Along with the other considerations I’ve provided you with, this is just one more reason to reject a literal interpretation of Jesus’ words here.

What intrigues me is that you think someone can be "non-physically resurrected to judgment". Which is a pretty heady claim. That's sophistry. You have no basis on which to stand here. You know they're not alive, spiritually. On what basis are such people "resurrected"?

It’s no more “sophistry” to understand ANY death/life/resurrection language as non-physical, Mikey. On what basis do you believe Jesus switches from talking about figurative “death,” “life” and “dead” people to talking about literal dead people? No basis at all. Your interpretation is completely arbitrary. It’s you who must employ “sophistry” in order to make such a distinction when there is none.

Furthermore, in the 37th chapter of Ezekiel, the prophet speaks of a non-literal resurrection of the “whole house of Israel.” There, he quotes God as saying “I will OPEN YOUR GRAVES and RAISE YOU FROM YOUR GRAVES…” Do you think everyone taking part in this figurative resurrection was alive, spiritually? No; that’s absurd. Many who were raised from this “death” were subsequently judged yet again.

Regarding “resurrection” language, one can literally be “raised,” or “stand again,” from a supine position to an upright standing position, or one can be raised from a state of natural death to a state of natural life. Or, one can be raised to a completely new dimension and quality of life (as Christ was). Or, one can be raised to a state of spiritual life, only to subsequently fall away and then later find oneself being raised un-expectantly to a state of judgment. It is in this sense that Jesus uses the word. It is no more used literally than the words “death,” “life” and “dead” in verses 24 and 25.

As I’ve said, the “judgment” of which Christ speaks was a judgment that took place before the generation of which he was a part passed away. For almost 40 years after Christ’s ascension, life simply went on as usual for the Jews of that first century generation. Some continued to respond to the Gospel of the kingdom with faith (and consequently were being raised to new life), while some remained in unbelief, and remained in a state of “death.” Others fell away from the truth and returned to their former ways. But when the prophetic signs began to appear, indicating that Christ’s coming in judgment was near, believers (whom Paul said were “not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief,” and whom he exhorted not to “sleep, as others do,” but to “keep awake and be sober” – 1 Thess 5:4, 6) were thus roused to activity and were able to escape the coming judgment by fleeing from the area, just as Christ had commanded them to do (see the Olivet discourses). But for those who had remained in unbelief (or had fallen back into unbelief), that day surprised them like a thief in the night. Again, Paul says, “While people are saying, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (v. 3). Such were indeed “resurrected” from their former state, and way of life. However, their resurrection was not to life (or blessing), but to judgment.

Those believers who remained “sober” and “endured to the end” were also “resurrected” – not to the judgment of their nation, but to “life” (the aionion life of the Messianic age, when it replaced the Mosaic age of the law in 70 AD).

thelasttrumpet

21st February 2008, 12:15 PM

He will render to each one according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, he will give eternal life; but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality. Rom 2:6-11
You've no cause to think of a dead man enduring or being in tribulation; receiving wrath and fury; in distress. Yet you claim those who aren't alive won't receive these things. I could only conclude that you think such things happen to people in this physical life, which I would say is absurd. Plenty of mass murderers have gone to their graves without a moment's inconvenience.

You might think it’s absurd, but the apostle Paul begs to differ. In Romans 1:18, we read, “For the WRATH OF GOD is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth…” In verses 21-32, Paul tells us HOW the “wrath of God is revealed from heaven” against the wickedness of such people: “For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things...(v. 21) THEREFORE God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves…(v. 24) FOR THIS REASON God gave them up to dishonorable passions...(v. 26) AND SINCE they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done...(v. 28) Though they know GOD’S DECREE that those who practice such things DESERVE TO DIE [not “suffer endlessly in torment after death”], they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them” (v. 32).

I’m afraid your talk about “mass murderers” going “to their graves without a moment’s inconvenience” flies in the face of Scripture, which is clear that no one escapes God’s judgment in this life. In one way or another, every sinner suffers the inevitable consequences of their sins (which is what Paul calls “the wrath of God”). For some, the consequences may APPEAR to lack severity; it may even SEEM that some “get off the hook,” so to speak. But I would argue that such appearances are misleading. Sin doesn’t make us happy; it makes us miserable. And the Bible tells us that God is just and fair, and judges everyone according to their works - even “mass murderers” (though keep in mind that many such people are extremely mentally disturbed, if not completely insane, and are thus perhaps less culpable than, say, you or I would be, for committing a much less heinous act against another person).

Do you really think those who are “dead in transgressions and sins” experience true joy and peace in their life? Do you envy their lifestyle? Would you live in sin as well if you didn’t believe in future retribution when this life is over? I seriously doubt it. The pleasures of sin are fleeting; sin always yields inevitable heartache, pain and sorrow, and a complete loss of true joy in life. No sinner gets off “Scott-free.”

Because God is the sovereign Ruler and Judge of the moral universe, every sinner must reap exactly what they’ve sown – not in another life, but in this one. There is not a verse in scripture that says anyone reaps in any other existence than the one in which they sow. In fact, the Bible’s consistent testimony is that, appearances notwithstanding, God makes sure that people – whether on an individual or national level - are fully punished in this life. The wages of sin is death – that is the universal experience of those who sin. Just as Adam and Eve DIED on the very day they transgressed, so all people experience the same kind of DEATH when they sin. Tragically, some people live and die physically without ever knowing anything but spiritual death.

In addition to this universal punishment for sin, there are other ways in which God judges and punishes people for sin. For some, a premature death is such a punishment (think about the people of Sodom and Gomorrah, or those who died in the great flood). For many others, their “personalized punishment” may consist in other types of suffering and tribulation, both physical and emotional/psychological (think about God’s judgment upon Cain after killing his brother Abel). Whatever way God chooses to punish the wicked, the absolute and unconditional testimony of scripture is this: “‘There is no peace,’ says my God, ‘for the wicked’” (Isaiah 57:21). And “everyone who is arrogant in heart is an abomination to the LORD; be assured, he will not go unpunished” (Prov 16:5). No matter what someone is guilty of, we can rest assured that God is perfectly just, both in the certainty of their experiencing appropriate consequences for their unlawful actions, as well as in how exactly their punishment is meted out. However, to argue that God is not just unless he endlessly punishes sinners after this life is over, is to argue from a man-made philosophy, because no such teaching is found in scripture.

Plus, the context of Paul's statement shows how hollow this assertion is:
For all who have sinned without the law will also perish without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified. For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. Rom 2:12-16
The day when men are judged is in the future. That day is a day of wrath.

Any time an individual sinner (or city/nation) faces the consequences of their unlawful actions, it is a “day of wrath” for them. And there’s not a verse in scripture that says God’s wrath is experienced somewhere other than in this life. “That day” when God judged “the secrets of men by Christ Jesus” is not at the end of time, but was the day of Christ’s coming in the destruction of Jerusalem (which was the commencement of Christ’s reign); verses 13 to 15 are parenthetical.

Furthermore, do you even know what the punishments were that the law prescribed for law-breakers under the old covenant? You put “will also perish without the law” and “will be judged by the law” in bold, as if you’re fully aware of what the judgments under the law were. Are you? If you are, then you should know that every revealed punishment under the law was completely confined to this life. And so I’m afraid that your theory that God’s law demands that people be endlessly tormented is completely false. Such a doctrine can’t be derived from any verse that talks about the “curse of the law,” or of anyone being “judged by the law” (etc.), because the law had no such insane penalty attached to it as “endless torment.”

thelasttrumpet

21st February 2008, 12:16 PM

You really have to stand each of these points on its head to force the view you're proposing.

Truly, I say to you, it will be more bearable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town. Mt 10:15

And you, Capernaum, will you be exalted to heaven? You will be brought down to Hades. For if the mighty works done in you had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day. But I tell you that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom than for you. Mt 11:23-24

Neither of these passages teach that everyone who has ever lived is going to be judged at the “end of time.” Christ is not contrasting the punishment of Sodom with the punishment of all the wicked at the end of the world, but with the punishment of those cities which rejected the ministry of he and the apostles. But even if a future, “general judgment” was being taught (though I deny that scripture teaches this), the idea that anyone is to be sentenced to “endless torment” can only be read into the text. The punishment inflicted on these cities is ON their day of judgment, not AFTER it (and especially not for an endless duration of time after it). But Christ is not even talking about a final, “general judgment” when all sinners will be brought before him to receive their “eternal sentence.” Again, Christ is simply speaking of the day when God’s vengeance would fall upon the cities in view that were guilty of rejecting him – and the judgment is in this world, not in “eternity.”

It may be argued that the future tense Christ uses (“it will be”) disproves this idea. However, in Ezekiel 16:46-56, the prophet represents Samaria as dwelling at the left hand of Jerusalem, and Sodom at its right. This was not literally true, however; both cities had been destroyed for centuries. But Ezekiel is speaking AS IF they were then dwelling alongside Jerusalem, in order to more forcibly impress upon his reader’s minds the contrast he’s making between these cities and the present, wicked state of Israel. If Ezekiel could use the present tense when speaking of Samaria and Sodom, and thus represent them as being in existence at that time when they had in reality been destroyed ages ago, then Christ could certainly speak in a similar way, in reference to a similar situation. He is simply speaking AS IF Sodom (and other cities) were present at the time of the judgment of the then-present-day cities of Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum, in order to more forcibly impress upon the minds of his listeners the greater severity with which the then-present-day cities would be judged.

It should also be noted that the rest of Scripture is utterly silent with regard to a future judgment for Sodom, Tyre and Sidon in “eternity.” In Genesis 19 and Isaiah 23, we find a very particular account of the judgments of these cities, but not a word is said of their ever being judged again in “eternity.”

Moreover, Christ is explicitly speaking of a judgment upon cities, not the former inhabitants of cities. Christ does not say, “more tolerable for the sinners of Sodom.” No, he says, “more tolerable for the LAND of Sodom” (Matt 11:24), and even says Sodom “would have remained until this day” (v. 23) implying that it was no more. This is proof positive that Christ does not have in view a second judgment in a future state of all the individual people who once lived in this city (or any other city). He’s talking about the cities themselves (in the case of Sodom, that which “would have remained” until that day) as they existed and functioned in their former corporate and political capacities and geographical locations. Thus, Christ is not saying that the city of Sodom has ANOTHER “day of judgment” in the future, because the city of Sodom doesn’t even exist anymore (again, v. 23). Even if God were to resurrect every former citizen of this city and the others, the cities themselves would not be resurrected, with their original location and corporate capacities. The cities would still be no more. In the resurrection there will be no “Sodom and Gomorrah,” only those who were once citizens of these cities. Thus, even if there is to be a future judgment in store for all individuals (though I deny that scripture teaches this), there is no more “Sodom and Gomorrah” left to be judged. Any judgment upon a city must be experienced on the earth, while the city still has its metropolitan existence. This temporal world is the only place where cities like Sodom and Gomorrah have such an identity and existence, and thus it is only in this temporal world that cities can be judged as such.

What is meant by the expression, “exalted to heaven?” It doesn’t mean “to go to heaven after death.” This is simply an expression to denote great privileges. Capernaum was quite prosperous, being successful in commerce. But most of all, it was signally favored by the presence, preaching, and miracles of Christ. He evidently spent a large part of his time here in the early part of his ministry, and in Capernaum and its neighborhood he performed his chief miracles. And the words, “brought down to hades” doesn’t mean that all the people would go to a place of endless torment (either after death or at some future time), but that the city which had flourished so prosperously would lose its prosperity, and occupy the lowest place among cities. The word “hades” literally means the state of the dead (or simply the grave), and here denotes the inevitable state of desolation and destruction to which it would be brought as a city (and thus stands in stark contrast with their being “exalted to heaven”). All of their privileges, honors, wealth, etc., were to be taken away, and they would sink as low among cities as they had before being “exalted.” This was literally fulfilled. During the Jewish-Roman wars (less than 40 years from the time Jesus uttered these words), Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum were so completely desolated that it is difficult to determine their former situation.

Thus, the “day of judgment” for Sodom and Gomorrah, Tyre and Sidon, Chorazin, Bethsaida, and Capernaum, was when these cities were destroyed. Notice that all the punishment threatened against Capernaum is set forth in the expression, “will be brought down to hades.” Again, “hades” does not denote endless torment in a future state, but desolation and destruction in this world. And as Capernaum was equally guilty with the other cities mentioned (and even more guilty than cities such as Sodom), it makes no sense at all to understand its punishment as being temporal, and the others as being endless, in an immortal state. No more is expressed by the phrase, “more tolerable in a day of judgment” than in the phrase “brought down to hades.” Christ is simply contrasting the severity of temporal judgments upon cities. As the spiritual advantages given to Capernaum had been greater, so its punishment would be more severe on the “day of judgment.”

I tell you, on the day of judgment people will give account for every careless word they speak ... The men of Nineveh will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for they repented at the preaching of Jonah, and behold, something greater than Jonah is here. The queen of the South will rise up at the judgment with this generation and condemn it, for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, something greater than Solomon is here.Mt 12:36, 41-42

All unbelieving Jews did “give account for every careless word” they spoke on their “day of judgment” (which was the overthrow of the Jewish nation). For Christ then says in the next verse (v. 37): “By your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.” Those who spoke against Christ and blasphemed the Holy Spirit (see vv. 22-38) were thus condemned to the awful judgment that fell upon their nation before that generation passed away. And those who confessed Jesus as Messiah and Lord were spared from this judgment, and went into “aionion life.”

And do you really think Christ is saying that the people of Nineveh (as well as the Queen of Sheba – 1 Kings 10:1) would literally “rise up” at the judgment of that generation and condemn it? I find it hard to believe that even you would understand this literally. Christ is no more saying that the Ninevites and the Queen of Sheba would make a literal, personal appearance just to condemn that generation than he is saying that the city of Sodom was literally going to re-appear and be judged again (though less severely than the city of Capernaum!). No, they “rose up” in the judgment that fell upon that generation in a figurative sense – by their history and conduct given in the Old Testament, they were as a witness against that wicked generation of Jews who had rejected their own Messiah.

And I won’t let you overlook the fact that it was that first-century generation of Jewish people (those who were contemporaries with Christ) that the Ninevites and Queen of Sheba were said to rise up and condemn. It was that generation only that Christ had in view. Again, just prior to the Olivet discourse, Christ told the scribes and Pharisees that it was their wicked and adulterous generation which was going to be so severely judged:

"Thus you witness against yourselves that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets. Fill up, then, the measure of your fathers. You serpents, you brood of vipers, how are you to escape being sentenced to Gehenna? [on the meaning of Gehenna, see Jeremiah 19] Therefore I send you prophets and wise men and scribes, some of whom you will kill and crucify, and some you will flog in your synagogues and persecute from town to town, so that on you may come all the righteous blood shed on earth, from the blood of innocent Abel to the blood of Zechariah the son of Barachiah, whom you murdered between the sanctuary and the altar. Truly, I say to you, all these things will come upon this generation." Matt 23:30-36

And let me remind you again that Christ told his disciples that "this generation" would not pass away before all the things of which he spoke concerning his coming in judgment, were fulfilled (Matt 24:34; Mark 13:30; Luke 21:32).

thelasttrumpet

21st February 2008, 12:18 PM

We are not in the eternal state.

I never said we were in the “eternal state.” However, if you understand the adjective aionion to mean “eternal,” then you would have no choice but to believe that we are indeed living in “times eternal” (see Rom 16:25; 2 Tim 1:9; Titus 1:2). However, I understand this phrase to mean “times that pertain to the ages,” or “age-during times,” not “times eternal.” The times in which we mortals live are defined by ages, not “eternity.” And though I don’t believe there is a word in scripture (either in the Old or New Testament) that can be accurately translated “eternal” or “eternity,” I believe the only true “eternal state” (in the sense of endlessness) will be after the resurrection of the dead, when “this corruptible puts on incorruption, and this mortal puts on immortality.”

The Last Day has not occurred.

I agree that the “last day” has not yet occurred. That phrase is used only in John’s gospel to refer to the day when Christ raises the dead (it is called the “last day” because it takes place at the end of Christ’s reign, right before he delivers the kingdom to God). However, the “last days” are past, because that phrase denotes the time period leading up to the end of the Mosaic age (or do you think we’ve been living in the “last days” for the last 2000 years?). Similarly, the “day when the Son of Man is revealed” is past. This can be proven with a simple logical argument from Scripture:

Luke 21:20 says, “But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then know that its desolation has come near. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let those who are inside the city depart, and let not those who are out in the country enter it.”

Now, we find in the Gospel of Matthew (as well as in Mark’s Gospel) a parallel account of what we just read in Luke 21:21. In Matthew 24:16-18, we read the following: “Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. Let him who is on the housetop not go down to take anything out of his house. And let him who is in the field not turn back to get his cloak.”

Finally, we find that these verses in Matthew 24:16-18 are parallel to Luke 17:30-31: “…even so will it be in the day when the Son of Man is revealed. On that day, let him who is on the housetop, with his goods in the house, not come down to take them away. And likewise let him who is in the field not turn back.” Once again, this parallels Matt 24:16-18 (and that, almost to the letter).

If Luke 21:21 parallels Matthew 24:16-18, and Matthew 24:16-18 parallels Luke 17:30-31, then the rules of logic demand that Luke 21:20-21 (which is clearly referring to the destruction of the city of Jerusalem and the temple in AD 70) is referring to the same event as that in Luke 17:30-31. In other words, the time when the Judean Christians were to flee the city and countryside (departing from roofs and fields and not stopping or turning back) was the day when the Son of Man was revealed (Luke 17:30). This would therefore place the general timeframe for these events between 67-70 AD.

No one saw Jesus descending on the clouds -- and Jesus said everyone would, and everyone would know.

No, here is what the scriptures say: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn on account of him." (Rev 1:7)

Even though you think this event is still future, I doubt you even believe that every single eye of every single person who has ever lived throughout history will see Christ “coming with the clouds.” It’s obvious that “every eye” is a hyperbolic expression.

And who were these “tribes of the earth (or "land")” who would be grieving over Christ? To answer this question, we need only look to Zechariah 12:10-14:

'And I will pour out on the house of David, and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace and prayers. And they (i.e., the inhabitants of Jerusalem) shall look on me whom they have pierced, and shall mourn for him. As one mourns, for an only son, and will be bitter over him like the bitterness over the firstborn. In that day (i.e., when they look on Him whom they had pierced) the mourning in Jerusalemwill be great, like the mourning of Hadad-rimmon in the valley of Megiddo. And the land shall mourn, families by families alone; the family of the house of David alone, and their wives alone; the family of Nathan alone, and their wives alone; the family of the house of Levi alone, and their wives alone; the family of Shimei alone, and their wives alone; all the families who are left, family by family alone, and their wives alone."

The Hebrew word for “family” is mishpachah. It means a family, tribe or people group. The family or “tribes” to which John is referring were the twelve tribes of Israel ("the inhabitants of Jerusalem"). This also helps us identify the “land” (or "earth") in Rev. 1:7. According to Zechariah, the “land” is the land of Judea (specifically, Jerusalem). Also, it is those tribes (i.e., the people of Israel) who, at his coming, would look on the One whom they had pierced. And because of that, “the mourning in Jerusalem” would be great.

The Jewish people of that first-century generationsaw Christ “coming with the clouds” in the same sense that the high priest (to whom Christ spoke during his trial) saw “the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt 26:64), and in the same sense that Nathanael saw “heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (John 1:51). In neither of these examples was there a literal seeing with the physical eyes; yet both Caiaphas and Nathanael still saw him, just as Christ said they would.

Full preterism suppresses the distinction Jesus makes between Jerusalem and the People of God. "All these are but the beginning of the birth pains." Mt 24:8

For one thing, I’m not technically a “full preterist,” since I understand Christ’s personal coming to raise the dead to be in the future. But how is Matt 24:8 proof of the assertion that “full preterism suppresses the distinction Jesus makes between Jerusalem and the People of God?” I’m afraid I’m not following your argument here.

They would see the Last Day in microcosm, and Jesus said as much.

They would see it “in microcosm?” That’s your own opinion; what do you have to substantiate it? If Matthew 24-25 is talking about more than one coming of Christ, and more than one judgment, then who’s to say it can’t be talking about a dozen or more? But I deny that there is more than one coming/judgment in view (such as a “microcosm” judgment and a “macrocosm” judgment), and demand proof of this.

But there's a Last Day of Judgment to come, and there mankind shall be judged, and grace, life, and punishment will be given out from the Throne.

No, I’m afraid Scripture doesn’t teach a “final judgment” in which all mankind will be judged after this life and given different “eternal” destinies.

Blessings,
Aaron

heymikey80

22nd February 2008, 12:06 PM

No, here is what the scriptures say: "Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all the tribes of the earth will mourn on account of him." (Rev 1:7)

Even though you think this event is still future, I doubt you even believe that every single eye of every single person who has ever lived throughout history will see Christ “coming with the clouds.” It’s obvious that “every eye” is a hyperbolic expression.

Y'can stop right there.

The problem is that it's so hyperbolic as to mean nothing interpreting it as 70 AD:
"Y'mean not every eye shall see him?"
"Well no, it won't be everyone."
"Well, who will see Him? Will His enemies see Him and be converted?"
"Well, no, they won't see anything but destruction when it comes on them."
"Well, then who will see Him? Will His people see Him?"
"Well, no, they won't see Him, they'll get destroyed just like everyone else."
So what you're really saying here, is Jesus is speaking so hyperbolically that when He says everyone sees Him, that no one sees Him.

Which is wrong.

heymikey80

22nd February 2008, 12:20 PM

The immediate context of this verse in Jesus' teaching is judgment. The judgment of God is death for those who don't believe, and eternal life for those who do believe. It's no surprise Jesus would say that turning and believing is equivalent to passing from death to life. Those are the judgments He is handing down, and God will execute those judgments with exacting precision.

Jesus is distinguishing physical resurrection from His spiritual judgment. For spiritual: "an hour is coming, and is now here" (:25); for physical, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out" (:28-29a). That's physical. And clearly when Jesus says physical things, physical things are appointed to happen. The physical resurrection isn't simply "of life" -- but it's also "of judgment".Certainly. Except, “death” doesn’t mean “endless life in unending torments,” and “aionion life” doesn’t mean “endless life in heaven.”
Actually I can prove that aionion life is endless life. That it's immortal life. That it's indestructible life.the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:
"Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?" 1 Cor 15:52-55

This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,

"You are a priest forever,
after the order of Melchizedek." Heb 7:15-17
So the rest collapses under that assumption. Volumes of response won't change Scripture. I await the change to your argument.

I reiterate, Jesus talks about people being resurrected physically to undergo judgment instead of receiving eternal life. Jesus flatly contradicts your statement.

heymikey80

22nd February 2008, 12:38 PM

Jesus is distinguishing physical resurrection from His spiritual judgment. For spiritual: "an hour is coming, and is now here" (:25); for physical, "an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out" (:28-29a). That's physical.
You have absolutely no good, scriptural reason for believing that Jesus switches from talking about spiritual resurrections to talking about physical resurrections. There is no indication at all that Jesus switches from using metaphorical language to speaking literally. All you’re doing is make assertions, with no regard as to the immediate or larger context. As I demonstrated in an earlier post, “an hour is coming” refers to a soon-approaching future time that came to pass before that generation passed away. Do you dispute this? Can you even provide ONE verse where this phrase is used to refer to some end-of-time event that is to take place thousands of years from the time the expression is uttered?
Sorry, you absolutely missed the point here.

Jesus could not possibly have said "an hour is now here when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice". Because they weren't walking around, lasttrumpet. The next verse would've been, "And so Jesus was revealed as a liar, and he was stoned. Go back to your Old Testament and reread."

So, strike one.

Jesus did actually say, "an hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live." To deny this is to deny Jesus' words pointblank. Strike two.

But to say these two events are occurring right then & there, indistinguishable, at the same time -- that's just abyssmally wrong. You're complaining to the Umpire. Technical foul, you're outta the ballpark. One is clearly future, because it couldn't be otherwise! The other is clearly present, because Jesus said exactly that!

Exegesis, lasttrumpet. Exegesis has destroyed your argument here.

That's what I mean by sophistry. You dissipated Jesus words to where you feel safe denying what they actually say.

As for physical connections, I've never seen a spiritual presence in a physical tomb. Care to explain that expression away too?

an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5:28-29

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. Rom 6:5

thelasttrumpet

23rd February 2008, 03:20 PM

Y'can stop right there.

The problem is that it's so hyperbolic as to mean nothing interpreting it as 70 AD:
"Y'mean not every eye shall see him?"
"Well no, it won't be everyone."
"Well, who will see Him? Will His enemies see Him and be converted?"
"Well, no, they won't see anything but destruction when it comes on them."
"Well, then who will see Him? Will His people see Him?"
"Well, no, they won't see Him, they'll get destroyed just like everyone else."
So what you're really saying here, is Jesus is speaking so hyperbolically that when He says everyone sees Him, that no one sees Him.

Which is wrong.

If you can tell me how Caiaphas saw “the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt 26:64), and how Nathanael saw “heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (John 1:51), then you'll be able to tell me how thousands of people (both believers and unbelievers) saw Christ coming with the clouds at the destruction of Jerusalem.

Also, would you mind explaining how "those who pierced him" will see Christ at what you believe to be a future "coming with the clouds," as described in Revelation 1:7? There's only one generation in history of which those who had Christ crucified were a part, and it passed away almost 2,000 years ago.

thelasttrumpet

23rd February 2008, 03:32 PM

Actually I can prove that aionion life is endless life. That it's immortal life. That it's indestructible life.the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality. When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written:"Death is swallowed up in victory." "O death, where is your victory?O death, where is your sting?" 1 Cor 15:52-55

Sorry, but this passage doesn't prove that aionion life is endless life.This becomes even more evident when another priest arises in the likeness of Melchizedek, who has become a priest, not on the basis of a legal requirement concerning bodily descent, but by the power of an indestructible life. For it is witnessed of him,

"You are a priest forever,after the order of Melchizedek." Heb 7:15-17

Sorry, but this passage doesn't prove it, either. Or can you prove that our Lord's priestly office will continue as long as his indestructable life endures? You can't prove this, because it's not true. Why would Christ function as our High Priest after we are made sinless in the immortal resurrection? When we are thus made sinless and immortal (and Christ delivers the kingdom back to his Father), there will no longer be any need for a sinless High Priest to make intercession on behalf of sinners (Heb 7:25, etc.). Christ's office as High Priest will continue only as long as it is necessary. It is true that he is able to possess this special office because of his indestructable life, but that doesn't mean the office is as endless as the life itself.

Oh, and the word "forever" in verse 17 isn't aionion. It's aion. Literally, it would read, "into the age."

Volumes of response won't change Scripture. I await the change to your argument.

I agree, and it is for this reason that I await a change in your argument.

I reiterate, Jesus talks about people being resurrected physically to undergo judgment instead of receiving eternal life.

"Aionion life" is not "endless life." "Aion" doesn't mean "endlessness," and "aionion" never means "endless" in Scripture. Sorry.

Jesus flatly contradicts your statement.

I'd have to say that you're flatly contradicting Scripture.

thelasttrumpet

23rd February 2008, 03:49 PM

Sorry, you absolutely missed the point here.

Jesus could not possibly have said "an hour is now here when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice". Because they weren't walking around, lasttrumpet. The next verse would've been, "And so Jesus was revealed as a liar, and he was stoned. Go back to your Old Testament and reread."

So, strike one.

Your entire "exegetical argument" boils down to this unsubstantiated assertion: that the resurrection in v. 28 can't be spiritual because it was spoken of by Jesus as being in the future. I'm sorry, but that is a lame argument.

But to say these two events are occurring right then & there, indistinguishable, at the same time -- that's just abyssmally wrong. You're complaining to the Umpire. Technical foul, you're outta the ballpark.

I never said or implied that both events were "occurring right then and there, indistinguishable, at the same time." Sorry "Ump." Bad call.

One is clearly future, because it couldn't be otherwise! The other is clearly present, because Jesus said exactly that!

And why couldn't it have been otherwise, Mikey? How is the expression "in the graves" (especially in light of Ezekiel 37) any stronger, or more necessarily literal, than the phrase "the dead?" And please answer my challenge regarding the expression, "an hour is coming." Please provide one scripture verse where this expression is used to refer to a time thousands of years later, at the end of time.

thelasttrumpet

24th February 2008, 01:54 PM

an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment. Jn 5:28-29

For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. Rom 6:5

Sorry, almost missed this last part of your response (though you'll wish I had overlooked it, since it simply provides me with more "ammunition" :) ).

If you read Romans, chapter 6 carefully, you'll notice that Paul is not even talking about believers literally dying and literally being resurrected. Insofar as the believer is concerned, both "death" and "resurrection" are used figuratively by Paul in this chapter to denote dying to sin (v. 2) and being raised to "newness of life" (v. 4). That is, the "resurrection" is becoming "alive to God," in a spiritual/moral sense (vv. 6-14).

heymikey80

29th February 2008, 07:36 AM

If you can tell me how Caiaphas saw “the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt 26:64), and how Nathanael saw “heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (John 1:51), then you'll be able to tell me how thousands of people (both believers and unbelievers) saw Christ coming with the clouds at the destruction of Jerusalem.
As in all three cases Jesus said future when you're saying past, I don't see the need to demand any of these references as already happened. Nor should you. There's no reason to, unless you begin with an assumption that's unsupported by Scripture.
Also, would you mind explaining how "those who pierced him" will see Christ at what you believe to be a future "coming with the clouds," as described in Revelation 1:7? There's only one generation in history of which those who had Christ crucified were a part, and it passed away almost 2,000 years ago.
Sure. They're resurrected, alive at Christ's return. But then, the universality of the knowledge of Jesus is also declared there, and it didn't exist in AD 70:
Behold, he is coming with the clouds, and every eye will see him, even those who pierced him, and all tribes of the earth will wail on account of him. Even so. Amen.

heymikey80

29th February 2008, 07:45 AM

Sorry, but this passage doesn't prove that aionion life is endless life.
So you're just asserting this against the clear statement of Scripture.
Sorry, but this passage doesn't prove it, either. Or can you prove that our Lord's priestly office will continue as long as his indestructable life endures?
As you must realize by trying to dissolve the argument by shifting it -- that's irrelevant to proving His life is indestructible. And thus eternal.
You can't prove this, because it's not true. Why would Christ function as our High Priest after we are made sinless in the immortal resurrection?
Apparently because you misunderstand the function of a priest is not simply to make atonement for sins -- the One Who is the permanent Redemptor had better exist as long as that reconciliation exists! This isn't a cash transaction for which you get the goods. It's a union upon which you depend forever.
When we are thus made sinless and immortal (and Christ delivers the kingdom back to his Father), there will no longer be any need for a sinless High Priest to make intercession on behalf of sinners (Heb 7:25, etc.).
You think we're safe after being made sinless and immortal -- and yet our sinlessness and immortality is utterly reliant on Jesus Christ's sinlessness and immortality.

This is just so far separated from what Scripture says I'm having trouble following you. Jesus is not a cash transaction. Jesus is not a Kleenex Savior. This is all presupposed based on union with Christ. Ep 1. Jesus doesn't cease being a Savior. "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." We don't cease our need and utter dependence on Christ Jesus.

heymikey80

29th February 2008, 07:58 AM

Sorry, almost missed this last part of your response (though you'll wish I had overlooked it, since it simply provides me with more "ammunition" :) ).

If you read Romans, chapter 6 carefully, you'll notice that Paul is not even talking about believers literally dying and literally being resurrected. Insofar as the believer is concerned, both "death" and "resurrection" are used figuratively by Paul in this chapter to denote dying to sin (v. 2) and being raised to "newness of life" (v. 4). That is, the "resurrection" is becoming "alive to God," in a spiritual/moral sense (vv. 6-14).
If you read Romans 6 carefully you'll find that Paul is openly drawing an illustration from the two through the word "baptize". That's actually quite different from simply using the word "resurrection" figuratively.

If Paul means the resurrection is our figurative new life now, then Paul is lying when he gets to the part about "aionion life". It's not even an age long. His argument simply establishes a "a nice life". Not even your age-long one.

But instead Paul is saying something real happened. Jesus' crucifixion was real. Our associating ourselves with Jesus in baptism -- not "a little dab'll do ya" but the outworking of our union with Christ (reading Romans 6 carefully) -- presents us covenantally in a relationship with Jesus. The reality of Jesus' death impacts on our sinful selves, from the inside out. Not figure. Spirit falls on our physical lives. Not figure. And so to take this figuratively is to make Christ a figure, to make the Spirit a figure.

They're not. So Paul's not talking in such terms -- when read carefully.

So if this is the kind of argument you're drawing, then I've come to some conclusions about your position on post-mortem punishment.
The position tries to make figurative a number of statements of Scripture which, when read plainly, come up with a rather more vivid picture of human depravity and Divine salvation.
The position naturally soothes the present human frustration by making human pain a central avoidance of God's -- and thus God is a God of comfort first, a God of retribution, justice, and salvation (for if there's nothing to save from ...?) secondarily if at all.
We know good. We do wrong. We're that part of Creation that intentionally lives out our evil lives in seeming ignorance but in actual defiance of the God of the universe. We're much worse than you've proposed.

heymikey80

29th February 2008, 09:12 AM

Your entire "exegetical argument" boils down to this unsubstantiated assertion: that the resurrection in v. 28 can't be spiritual because it was spoken of by Jesus as being in the future. I'm sorry, but that is a lame argument.
ROFL! Flat-out minimization. "Boiling down" an argument inherently falsifies the truth of the argument -- because its truth is reduced.

With no better argument from you than, "that's lame", the point is established by the opposition abandoning the field.
I never said or implied that both events were "occurring right then and there, indistinguishable, at the same time." Sorry "Ump." Bad call.
You said they were the same event. The same event can't occur at different times. Look up "event".

Great call. Technical foul on your denial.
And why couldn't it have been otherwise, Mikey? How is the expression "in the graves" (especially in light of Ezekiel 37) any stronger, or more necessarily literal, than the phrase "the dead?" And please answer my challenge regarding the expression, "an hour is coming." Please provide one scripture verse where this expression is used to refer to a time thousands of years later, at the end of time.
Find one scripture verse where "all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out" is used figuratively. Or are you attempting to cite Ez 37 that way?if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. 1 Cor 15:13-19

thelasttrumpet

29th February 2008, 05:59 PM

If you read Romans 6 carefully you'll find that Paul is openly drawing an illustration from the two through the word "baptize". That's actually quite different from simply using the word "resurrection" figuratively.

If Paul means the resurrection is our figurative new life now, then Paul is lying when he gets to the part about "aionion life". It's not even an age long. His argument simply establishes a "a nice life". Not even your age-long one.

But instead Paul is saying something real happened. Jesus' crucifixion was real. Our associating ourselves with Jesus in baptism -- not "a little dab'll do ya" but the outworking of our union with Christ (reading Romans 6 carefully) -- presents us covenantally in a relationship with Jesus. The reality of Jesus' death impacts on our sinful selves, from the inside out. Not figure. Spirit falls on our physical lives. Not figure. And so to take this figuratively is to make Christ a figure, to make the Spirit a figure.

They're not. So Paul's not talking in such terms -- when read carefully.

I'm still not sure why you ended your argument by quoting this verse. It doesn't help you at all. And again, the only argument I'm drawing from it is this: insofar as he's talking about the believer's experience, Paul is not talking about literal "death" or "resurrection" in Romans 6. Paul is using Christ's literal death and resurrection to describe spiritual realities for the believer. Paul says (v. 8), "Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him." The "death" which they died was a death to sin (which their baptism signified). And the life they lived as a result of having died to sin was their being "alive to God."

The position tries to make figurative a number of statements of Scripture which, when read plainly, come up with a rather more vivid picture of human depravity and Divine salvation.

I think it's only your opinion that my position "tries" to make scriptural statements figurative that really aren't. I think your position tries to make literal a number of statements of scripture which, when read plainly, don't teach post-mortem punishment.

The position naturally soothes the present human frustration by making human pain a central avoidance of God's -- and thus God is a God of comfort first, a God of retribution, justice, and salvation (for if there's nothing to save from ...?) secondarily if at all.

You'll have to elaborate on this. I don't see how my position does this at all; all the human pain experienced in this life which the Bible describes is real, and all the human pain that you see every day is real. God doesn't shelter us from pain. So how does denying that scripture teaches post-mortem torment make God a "God of comfort?" Why do you think some people have to be endlessly tormented after death in order to make God "a God of retribution, justice and salvation?" And what do you mean by "for if there's nothing to be saved from?" Is deliverance from sin and death not salvation?

We know good. We do wrong. We're that part of Creation that intentionally lives out our evil lives in seeming ignorance but in actual defiance of the God of the universe. We're much worse than you've proposed.

I haven't "proposed" that we're any better than you've described, Mikey. I affirm that humans do what they know they ought not to do, all the time. And that's evil. And I believe we are fully punished for our sins. What I deny is that God's justice requires that anyone be punished after death. That's not scriptural. God justly punishes us for our sins in this life, and then we die. And through an immortal resurrection, God will eradicate sin from humanity altogether. That's how much God is opposed to sin. But how would inflicting endless pain on sinners solve anything? How would that satisfy God's justice, or uphold his honor?

heymikey80

1st March 2008, 10:59 AM

I'm still not sure why you ended your argument by quoting this verse. It doesn't help you at all.
What's the logic of, "For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised."
I think it's only your opinion that my position "tries" to make scriptural statements figurative that really aren't. I think your position tries to make literal a number of statements of scripture which, when read plainly, don't teach post-mortem punishment.
Um, yeah. Jesus saying people will in future walk out of the tombs to judgment must be purely figurative -- but only to someone who can't accept that it's plainly factual.

People came alive spiritually in preceding verses. That's not figurative. Spirituality is not linguistic figure.

Might this also be spiritual resurrection? Consider it -- and realize that spiritual resurrection removes the judgment. So Jesus would be denying what He just said (compare :24 with :29).

You've argued that one set of words never was pointing to the Last Day. I don't grant that, but -- on the same basis -- the words Jesus is using here have never been understood as figurative. The fact is, you can't get a consistent conclusion with this reasoning. Why pick & choose what you'll accept on the basis of an inconclusive argument? If one phrase points to the physical, and the other phrase (in your estimate) points to present judgment, then you've got a contradiction. The reasoning to reach this contradiction is thus faulty.

Net result: you can't trust this reasoning. It's inconclusive.

You can't treat God's word this way. Your method of argument answers two different ways depending on what phrase you examine.
You'll have to elaborate on this. I don't see how my position does this at all; all the human pain experienced in this life which the Bible describes is real, and all the human pain that you see every day is real. God doesn't shelter us from pain. So how does denying that scripture teaches post-mortem torment make God a "God of comfort?"
How does snuffing people out make God a "God of life"? How does hating people make God a "God of love"?

Again, your argument doesn't carry because it's inconsistent. It doesn't apply to any other concepts of Who God is. Why should it apply to "comfort" above all other attributes of God? Hm?
Why do you think some people have to be endlessly tormented after death in order to make God "a God of retribution, justice and salvation?" And what do you mean by "for if there's nothing to be saved from?" Is deliverance from sin and death not salvation?
Because what God says concludes as much, that's why. Why do you go to such extents as to argue Scripture doesn't mean what it flatly says?
I haven't "proposed" that we're any better than you've described, Mikey. I affirm that humans do what they know they ought not to do, all the time. And that's evil. And I believe we are fully punished for our sins. What I deny is that God's justice requires that anyone be punished after death.
You've asserted what Scripture denies. People won't be fully punished for their sins in this life. "It's appointed to men once to die. After that, the judgment." It's not "During that, the judgment." It's after.
That's not scriptural. God justly punishes us for our sins in this life, and then we die. And through an immortal resurrection, God will eradicate sin from humanity altogether. That's how much God is opposed to sin. But how would inflicting endless pain on sinners solve anything? How would that satisfy God's justice, or uphold his honor?
Why? It depends on how deeply impacting you assume sin to be. Since you're not concluding that on the basis of what Scripture said, then of course you'd have these questions about why the infliction of pain in eternity, why doesn't it solve something. The view of pain you're assuming is that it should have a healing purpose, a goal in time. But pain doesn't always have a healing purpose. Some pain is beyond redemption. You can at least see that in the present creation. Many people die in great pain. What purpose did that pain serve? So the fact is, pain has a purpose beyond stopping the pain. God is not obsessed with making us comfortable.

Why'd God tell people they'd die for their sin -- if really, they're not going to die? Why say people will be raised to judgment in the future?

Nah. Your view is not what Scripture is stating. It's too easy to point out the inconsistencies as we go along. Why have a spiritual resurrection to judgment in John 5? Why judge anyone who's spiritually resurrected? Don't they "not enter into judgment"? That's no spiritual resurrection to judgment. And yet you're saying that's what 5:29 is -- when Jesus is saying it's "the resurrection of judgment"?

It's inconsistent. It can't survive a simple review of the verse for meaning. So it's picking what you'd like the verse to teach, instead of what the verse actually teaches.

bradfordl

1st March 2008, 11:24 AM

And I believe we are fully punished for our sins.
Gee, no need for the atonement, then. Hmmm.

heymikey80

1st March 2008, 12:25 PM

Good point -- plus, aren't there a number of statements in Scripture pointing out evil people who died in comfort in their own beds?
4For they have no pangs until death;
their bodies are fat and sleek.
5They are not in trouble as others are;
they are not stricken like the rest of mankind.
6Therefore pride is their necklace;
violence covers them as a garment.
7Their eyes swell out through fatness;
their hearts overflow with follies.
8They scoff and speak with malice;
loftily they threaten oppression.
9They set their mouths against the heavens,
and their tongue struts through the earth.
10Therefore his people turn back to them,
and find no fault in them.
11And they say, "How can God know?
Is there knowledge in the Most High?"
12Behold, these are the wicked;
always at ease, they increase in riches. Psalm 73

thelasttrumpet

2nd March 2008, 09:55 AM

As in all three cases Jesus said future when you're saying past, I don't see the need to demand any of these references as already happened. Nor should you. There's no reason to, unless you begin with an assumption that's unsupported by Scripture.

So anything Jesus said was future at that time must be still future in our time as well? :scratch:

I say there's no reason to see them as still future unless you begin with the assumption that's unsupported by Scripture. Nowhere in Scripture does it say or imply that, in any of these three cases, the people in view (Nathanael, Caiaphas, those who crucified Jesus) would not see what we are told they would see until nearly 2,000 years later. Your argument is completely counter-intuitive and without any Scriptural merit.

Sure. They're resurrected, alive at Christ's return.

You're mistaken. The resurrection of all who die in Adam is not said to take place until the end of Christ's reign, right before he delivers up the kingdom to his Father - not when the Father delivers the kingdom to his Son. Jesus' "coming with the clouds" is when he is "given dominion and glory and a kingdom" (Daniel 7:13-14). In other words, it's at the commencement of his Messianic reign. The immortal resurrection of all who die in Adam is not said to take place at this time. Again, this takes place at the end of Christ's reign (i.e., the reign that began when he came "with the clouds of heaven" and received the kingdom from "the Ancient of Days," and will end at some unknown, future time).

But then, the universality of the knowledge of Jesus is also declared there, and it didn't exist in AD 70

The "universality of the knowledge of Jesus" is nowhere said to be "declared there."

Unanswered:

If you can tell me how Caiaphas saw “the Son of Man seated at the right hand of Power and coming on the clouds of heaven (Matt 26:64), and how Nathanael saw “heaven opened, and the angels of God ascending and descending on the Son of Man” (John 1:51), then you'll be able to tell me how thousands of people (both believers and unbelievers) saw Christ coming with the clouds at the destruction of Jerusalem.

Also, would you mind explaining how "those who pierced him" will see Christ at what you believe to be a future "coming with the clouds," as described in Revelation 1:7? There's only one generation in history of which those who had Christ crucified were a part, and it passed away almost 2,000 years ago.

thelasttrumpet

2nd March 2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43928629#post43928629)
Sorry, but this passage doesn't prove that aionion life is endless life.

So you're just asserting this against the clear statement of Scripture.

There is no "clear statement of Scripture" that aionion life is endless life. I'm asserting this against your unscriptural argument. The word aionion is not even used in the verses your provided.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43928629#post43928629)
Sorry, but this passage doesn't prove it, either. Or can you prove that our Lord's priestly office will continue as long as his indestructable life endures?

As you must realize by trying to dissolve the argument by shifting it -- that's irrelevant to proving His life is indestructible. And thus eternal.

Sorry, aionion is not used in these verses. And since you can't prove that Jesus' office as priest will continue as long as his indestructable life, you have no argument at all. He is said to be a priest "unto the age." Your assertion to the contrary is simply an argument against scripture.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43928629#post43928629)
You can't prove this, because it's not true. Why would Christ function as our High Priest after we are made sinless in the immortal resurrection?

Apparently because you misunderstand the function of a priest is not simply to make atonement for sins -- the One Who is the permanent Redemptor had better exist as long as that reconciliation exists! This isn't a cash transaction for which you get the goods. It's a union upon which you depend forever.

We can be permanently saved without Christ holding an endless office as Priest. Christ is our High Priest as long as we are sinners in need of priestly intercession.

Similarly, Christ is a King as long as he reigns over a kingdom. But this too shall one day end (1 Cor 15:24-28). Neither his kingship nor his office as High Priest is endless, and to argue otherwise is to argue with what scripture says about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet http://www3.christianforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://christianforums.com/showthread.php?p=43928629#post43928629)
When we are thus made sinless and immortal (and Christ delivers the kingdom back to his Father), there will no longer be any need for a sinless High Priest to make intercession on behalf of sinners (Heb 7:25, etc.).

You think we're safe after being made sinless and immortal -- and yet our sinlessness and immortality is utterly reliant on Jesus Christ's sinlessness and immortality.

I never argued otherwise. And nowhere does it say that Christ will be our High Priest for as long as he remains sinless and immortal.

This is just so far separated from what Scripture says I'm having trouble following you. Jesus is not a cash transaction. Jesus is not a Kleenex Savior. This is all presupposed based on union with Christ. Ep 1. Jesus doesn't cease being a Savior. "Consequently, he is able to save to the uttermost those who draw near to God through him, since he always lives to make intercession for them." We don't cease our need and utter dependence on Christ Jesus.

I never argued that we cease to utterly depend on Christ after we are made sinless and immortal. However, our dependence on him as our High Priest will last only as long as we are sinners. Christ "always lives to make intercession"...for who? For sinners (see vv. 26-27) who "draw near to God through him."

Christ was a Savior before he was our High Priest, and he will continue to be our Savior even after this office has come to an end.