Challenge to those who believe in Eternal Hell

[Rajni]

see
Job 21:30 That the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction? they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath.
2Th 1:8 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 pay a penalty of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power;

I see those verses referring to the wrath of God that befell Jerusalem in 70AD. Those who didn't believe Jesus didn't flee to the mountains of Judea before that catastrophe took place, and as a consequence they suffered that day of destruction.

Through His sacrifice, Jesus paid too high a price to come away with only a relative handful in the End of that which He purchased through His blood.

The English word "everlasting" in that verse is "aiónios" and means "age-long" as opposed to endless.

 

[Bernie02]

Can you explain to me why there is distinction between this person and "the wicked"?

Excellent question. Salvation is the removal of that 'raw material' which causes humans to sin. The metaphors of Sodom and Israel appeal directly to this process, as do many other passages in Scripture. Here are the components of salvation as I understand them:
1) All creation is at base information. You, me, goats, mountains, universals, spirit, mind, mathematics...all different kinds of things, but at base all share the common attribute of being: all is information.
2) God infused creation (according to Gen) with the same qualititative component: truth. All information originally true.
3) Adam and Eve introduced falsity by the only true "free will" choice. False fragmentally and causally infects all forms of information, but appears to begin in human spirit.
4) Each human a representation of the fall: wrong choice infects one's spirit, hence we continually commit spiriutal suicide. God works in background to fragmentally heal even while we infect (all salted with regenerational fire, Mark 9:49) What God retains in salting/continual cleansing is some ability in intellect to overcome the flow of causation by maintaining ability to choose in moral matters. This ability is weak, probably limited to capacity to assent or reject call to participate in cleansing necessary to establish faith.

Sodom represents the love of darkness (falsehood) winning out over the call to consent to light of truth. Israel represents one who assents and is directed to cleansing necessary to gain reward: faith. In time, same regenerational fire is used (fragmentally and progressively) as is found in lake of fire: death and resurrection not of information of human spirit's substance, but of spirit's essence. Substance remains same, essence undergoes fire and is purified to wholly true state.

The distinction you ask about is only established in time, where change of informational state is possible and along with it change of mind. At physical death, change no longer possible and it is what it is: either we believed and were changed by God in life to walk through lake of fire (God's pure, true essence) unscathed as Daniel's friends in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace, or immediate, torturous change in lake of fire. Same fire. Same change. Same result. All in the end are purified, either easy way (in time) or hard way (in eternity).

John 14:27 " Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; not as the world gives do I give to you Do not let your heart be troubled, nor let it be fearful.

"John 16:33 These things I have spoken to you, so that in Me you may have peace In the world you have tribulation, but take courage; I have overcome the world."

Only if one remains in Jesus can he have peace. That is only possible by being cleansed.

agreed. scope of 'remain in Jesus' outlined above.

1b. I don't see it, unless you're saying that Isaiah 42:3 is saying that He will not destroy them completely. However, Isaiah 27:9 seems to contradict, as it indicates breaking.

Unbeliever is represented in Isa 42:3, choosing to ignore call to cleansing in time so little is left alive, hence dimly burning wick. Restoration from heavily falsified/darkened spirit to wholly true/light-filled spirit is breaking. It is destruction. It is death and resurrection, one iota at a time in life, all at once and without mercy at point of or after physical death. (This is only surface of truth, btw...there is an even greater picture, but one few will embrace....the closer we get to the perfection of God's attributes, the less we like it cause the more we're burned and want to resist it and refuse to see it.)

The contradiction in the Bible between some (individuals) lost and some saved is resolved in 1) what we find this destuction to be (regeneration), and 2) how it is applied (to components within each person instead of to individuals holistically). It's really very simple once understood, but the change necessary to get the mind's eye to see this after a lifetime of being taught to look at the Bible 'crosseyed' is staggering. Ever see one of those illusionist pcs. of art where a different picture underlies the obvious one, but you have to look at it differently to see it? Same with spiritual stuff.

3. But is this not at Christ's coming? What about before Christ's coming?

Would everyone accept God if God revealed Himself before Christ's coming?

I don't think there can be a "before Christ's coming", whether you're talking about for individuals at the point of physical death or in a grand premillennial event. God foreordained that Christ precede His wrath, perfectly and justly decreed upon all that is false (because God is only True) so that Christ may intercede and save each one. If Christ did not precede wrath, wrath would simply--and properly--destroy exactly what is false in each spirit. In all cases, this would diminish the particular entity to a tiny faction of what it originally was or destroy it completely. Christ intervenes not to prevent wrath, but to redirect wrath from a purely destroying force to a restorative one. Abraham typified Christ with Sodom, Moses did with Israel. Same protection, different circumstances and different aspects of the same lesson or principle. Jesus didn't die to protect us from destroying ourselves, but to assure that all that is destroyed will again be restored. Thus, Paul's truth in Gal 6:7: "Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap."

As for universalism, I have considered it possible, but only for a time. How do you explain Rev. 20:8-9?

All appeal to destruction in the Bible is led to the principle behind it: from the ashes new life comes forth. It's through all the Bible if we'll just see it. Once understood, Godly destruction results in life, giving life to the testimony of Hosea: "Shall I ransom them from the power of Sheol? Shall I redeem them from death? O Death, where are your thorns? O Sheol, where is your sting? Compassion will be hidden from My sight." (Hos 13:14)
[many misinterpret God's pronouncement of no compassion; what He means is, "I don't care if it does hurt you to be reborn, I will not withold the restoration of your soul and lose you completely, despite your rejection of Me; I love you too much to allow this!" ]

 

[DeaconDean]

Challenge to those who believe in Eternal Hell

Lets examine what scriptures say on the subject.

From a paper I wrote:

“There is deep need for us to approach this solemn subject impartially and dispassionately. Let writer and reader cry earnestly to God that all prejudices and preconceptions may be removed from our minds. It ill becomes us to sit at the feet of Infinite Wisdom determined to hold fast to our foregone conclusions. Nothing can be more insulting to God than to presume to examine His Word, professing a desire to learn His mind, when we have already settled to our own satisfaction what it will say. Some one has said that we ought to bring our minds to the Scriptures as blank paper is brought to the printing press, that it may receive only the impress of the type. May such grace be vouchsafed to us all that we may ever present our minds to the Holy Spirit's teaching that only the impress may be left which God has designed. May our only desire be to hear "What saith the Lord?"

-Arthur W. Pink​

In the last half of the twentieth century, man has begun to doubt the certainty of Biblical teachings in light of his own understanding. Man places God in the position of a benevolent type of person who would not hurt a fly. They think that the goodness of God extends to His whole existence. But these people are only fooling themselves. For example: God is now our heavenly father, just as our earthly father would spank us when we misbehaved, so our heavenly Father does to Christians when we sin and misbehave. (Heb. 12:5-10) And it is for that reason, because He loves us that He does that. And isn’t that the essential message of Heb. 12:6-7? And those trials, the ones that come upon us so as to try our faith, and are allowed to happen to us because it helps us to grow in our walk with Him by increasing our faith in Him and our dependency on Him. (1 Thes. 3:3) Now if a loving heavenly Father will go to so much trouble for us here on earth, how much worse will it be for those would reject Him? If the ungodly will not bear a little spanking from God here on earth, just think of the punishment they will endure at the end of their lives at the hands of the heavenly Father. But today, people don’t like to see it that way. In today’s society, people are preaching in the pulpits that the whole of mankind will ultimately be saved, Satan included. And what is also being preached is that sinners will die and go to hell where they will be punished for their sins only for a short time, then they will “burn up” and disappear. What is worse of all is the lack of preaching and teaching what this doctrine is all about and what it really means. It was because this doctrine was in so much doubt that this task was undertaken to examine the doctrine of hell, and remind people, that with a certainty, there is a hell or “Hades” if you prefer.

In these enlightened days, the doctrine of hell is increasingly coming under attack, but not from outside the church. No, hell is being attacked from within the church! The idea of hell, the abode of the dead, the place where those who rejected God’s gracious offer of salvation through His Son Jesus Christ, the place where they go when their mortal body ceases and the immortal soul departs to be held in hell until the final judgment, is becoming more of an offense rather than the righteousness of God revealed. Yes, people are rejecting the notion of a hell in record numbers. But nevertheless, we are admonished to:

“Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

-2 Tim. 2:15 (KJV)​

​

So we are to study His word. And in doing so, we cannot overlook the words of His own Son. For His Son had more to say on this subject than any other message He preached. That is why in seminaries across our country, church history, rather the history of Christianity is taught. In seminary, we were taught one of the primary creeds after the reformation was that of the Westminster Confession of Faith. This confession has one of the best statements about what awaits both the believer and the unbeliever at the moment of death. In it, it states:

I) The bodies of men, after death, return to the dust, and see corruption: (Gen. 3:19; Acts 13:36) but their souls, which neither die nor sleep, having an immortal subsistence, immediately return to God who gave them: (Lk. 23:43; Ecc. 12:7) the souls of the righteous, being made perfect in holiness, are received into the highest heavens where they behold the face of God, in light and glory, waiting for the full redemption of their bodies. (Heb. 12:23; 2 Cor. 5:1,6,8; Acts 3:21; Eph. 4:10) And the souls of the wicked are cast into hell, where they remain in torments and utter darkness, reserved to the great judgment day. (Lk. 16:23-24; Acts 1:25; Jude 6-7; 1 Pet. 3:19) Beside these two places, for souls separated from their bodies, the scripture acknowledges none.
II) At the last day, such as are found alive shall not die, but be changed: (1 Thes. 4:17; 1 Cor. 15: 51-52) and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever. (Job 19:26-27; 1 Cor. 15:42-44)
III) The bodies of the unjust shall, by the power of Christ, be raised to dishonor: the bodies of the just, by His Spirit, unto honor; and be made conformable to His own glorious body. (Jn. 5:28-29; Acts 24:15; 1 Cor. 15:43; Phil. 3:21) [1]

Our whole doctrine concerning hell comes not from one singular place in the Holy writ; rather it is taken from the whole. But by the same token, in only one place is the veil pulled back and we are allowed but one glimpse into the place where those who die outside Christ must be interred until the time when “we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.” (Rom. 14:10) And that is the message Jesus taught in Luke 16:19-31. But before any mention of that passage of scripture must come, we must look at the first mention hell (geheena) is in Jesus’ own words in Matt. 5:22 where we have a simple but stern warning about hell’s fire:


“...but whosoever shall say, thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

-Matt. 5:22 (KJV)​

​

So strictly reading from Jesus’ own words, the abode of the wicked dead, either before or after the judgment, there will be a fire there.
John the Baptist gave a message similar to this where he compared God’s elect with those who are not His. In the Gospel of Matthew, John the Baptist compares the elect to wheat and the wicked to the chaff in that he says:

“...gather his wheat into the garner; but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”
-Matt. 3:12 (KJV)

[1] The Westminster Confession of Faith of 1642, Chapter 32, Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead, [article on-line] accessed 3/26/04, found on the World Wide Web at: http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/ch_xxxii.html

 

[DeaconDean]

John also draws the same illusion earlier when he preached:

“...every tree which bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down and cast into the fire.”

-Matt. 3:10 (KJV)​

​

To make it a little simpler to understand, lets say you plant some tomatoes. When these plants reach a certain size, they will bring forth flowers. This is sure sign that the plants will bring forth their fruit in due time. But if these plants do not bring forth flowers, you know that these plants will not bring forth fruit. So rather than have these plants occupy space in the garden which other plants could use to bring forth fruit, the gardener will pull them up and sow other seeds in their place. Ones in which the farmer knows will bear fruit. So it is in this life, those who die without Christ or per chance are alive when He returns, will be the trees that are cut down or the chaff which is separated from the wheat, and thrown into the fire.
Now let us see what happens at the end of a person’s life. When the word death is used in connection with a person’s life, it is said that it occurs when the heart stops beating for a sufficient amount of time that the brain is denied an amount of blood and oxygen so as to cause irreversible brain damage. When all bodily functions whether involuntary or voluntary, cease to function as designed, death is said to occur. To the Christian, it is generally accepted that at the moment of death, something unique happens. To the Christian, at the moment of death, the body and soul separate. The body returns to the dust from whence it came, and the soul departs to enter either heaven or hell.
James Petigru Boyce states that the distinction as death coming from the result of sin by way of Adam’s transgression. [1]
The Apostle Paul states:

“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin, so that death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.”

-Rom. 5:12 (KJV)​

​

And in another place, Paul tells us that the result of sin is death:

“For the wages of sin is death.”

-Rom. 6:23 (KJV)​

​

So in a nutshell, when we first sinned, that brought about our eventual death. And here, Dr. Boyce makes the distinction:

“It is sometimes called “natural” or “physical” death, to distinguish it from that which is “spiritual;” the death “of the body,” as opposed to that “of the soul;” and “temporal” death, in contrast with that which is everlasting.”[2]

We know that unless we are still alive when the Lord returns, death is a certainty:

“And as it is appointed unto men once to die,”

-Heb. 9:27 (KJV)​

​

The death of those who are without is easy to account for. As stated previously, death is part of the penalty for sin, to which scriptures teach, (Rom. 5:12-14; 1 Cor. 15:21-22, 53-56) But on the other side of the coin, is the death of one of His saints. The Bibles says this about the death of one His saints:

“Precious in the sight of the Lord is the death of one of his saints.”

-Psa. 116:15 (KJV)​

​

And why is this? Because scriptures tell us:

“He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight.”

-Psa. 72:14 (KJV)​

​

The terminology set forth in the previous passages of scripture, cannot be used when talking of the wicked dead. They have rejected His gracious offer of salvation, and as a result. There is no escape from the penalty of sin, and upon their head rests fully, God’s wrath.

“There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus,”

-Rom. 8:1 (KJV)​

​

However:

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God...He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

-Jn. 3:18,36 (KJV)​

​

So let us now examine the doctrine of what is called the “Intermediate State.” James Petigru Boyce called the time between a person’s death and the resurrection the “Intermediate State.” It is that period of time between the death of the body and the resurrection of the body for judgment. On the intermediate state, scriptures do teach that the soul and the body do separate at death and on the judgment day they are reunited.

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

-Ecc. 12:7 (KJV)​

​

In the New Testament, this is bore true by Jesus’ words and Stephen’s vision.

“Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit.”

-Lk. 23:46 (KJV)​

​

And here:

“And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”

-Acts 7:59 (KJV)​

​

Nevertheless, there are a great many who will not believe this. And the most common used expression for this line of thought is the words “soul-sleep.” And since this viewpoint is not entirely one that is supported by mainline Protestants, there will no evidence given as to the debate of support for or against this viewpoint. Rather, we will look into whether or not there is sufficient evidence as given by scriptures. And this will come later on in the discussion.

[1] James Petigru Boyce, “Abstract of Systematic Theology,” [book on-line] accessed 3/12/04, found on the World Wide Web at: Founders Ministries | Boyce's Abstract of Systematic Theology--Chapter 39

[2] Ibid

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

In most respects, the condition of both the wicked and the righteous are much the same. To wit, the soul exists without a body. Paul’s discussion shows the spiritual body is one that is to be raised out of the grave in which the natural body was buried. (1 Cor. 15:44, 52-54) To quote one of the most used passages in the Gospels, Jesus told the thief on the cross:

“To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

-Lk. 23:43 (KJV)​

Some will argue that Jesus simply told the thief on the cross that as of today, he would have eternal life. But such an analogy is erroneous to what the scriptures have already plainly shown. To wit:

“And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into a high mountain apart, and was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light. And behold, there appeared Moses and Elias talking to him.”

-Matt. 17:1-3 (KJV)​

The importance of this particular passage of scripture is the fact that it isn’t a parable, it isn’t a hyper-bole, it isn’t anything other than what it really was, a real life experience where the dead were alive, outside the grave, and the were talking to the Savior, as witnessed by the disciples. This passage of scripture is also significant in that it shows three things:

1) There is life after death in the fact that Moses had died within sight of the Promised Land. The Lord God Himself had buried him. And yet here on the Mount of Transfiguration, he is alive and talking with Jesus.
2) The prophet Elijah, although he did not die, he had been taken up to heaven and yet is also seen alive, transfigured, (…for flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of heaven) and talking to the Lord Jesus.
3) Both men are examples or types of what awaits believers upon their deaths or what awaits believers if they are still alive when the Lord Jesus Christ returns in glory.

A fact further illustrated by the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31. Most people will want to discount this passage of scripture saying that it is a parable therefore it cannot be used to teach of the future of believers and unbelievers let alone the doctrine of hell. But to counter their argument, we must remind people that:

“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.”

-2 Tim. 3:16 (KJV)​

This little piece of scripture most people seem to forget. It tells us that “all scripture” not just some of the scriptures, but all scripture can be used for doctrine. So we have a valid argument here as to the validity of using Luke 16:19-31 as a base for a view into what awaits believers and unbelievers upon their individual deaths.
When the words “rest” or “sleep” are used, one should not be confused and think they mean the same thing as when one is tired at the end of a day and go to bed to rest or sleep. No, rather we turn once again to Dr. Boyce’s teaching and see this:

“Some have thought this because their condition is spoken of as one of “rest” and “sleep.” But evidently the former of these terms is used simply to declare the end of toils and labors of this life, and the enjoyment of exemption from their spiritual as well as temporal trials...The “sleep” more probably refers to the appearance of the body in death, and is beautifully expressive of the calm repose with which the Christian sinks into final dissolution.”[1]

So “rest” may be taken in a literal sense in that the believer will rest from their labors, yet sleep, as in the case of “soul-sleep” seems on the closer examination, to be totally wrong, for Moses and Elijah certainly were not asleep when they were seen by the disciples.
The important question here is what do you believe about the intermediate state? Based strictly on scripture alone, our soul does continue on after our physical death. And also, we remain conscious in that intermediate state. This may be seen in these four illustrations:

1) “For I am in a strait betwixt two, having a desire to depart, and to be with Christ; which is far better:”

-Phil. 1:23 (KJV)​

Notice here that Paul gives his implication to the fact that death is a departure from the body. If we are with Christ once we have died, then by applying logic, we continue to exist. If we were suddenly unconscious at death, as “soul-sleep” contends, until the resurrection, which is the more blessed state, asleep and out of fellowship with Christ, or to remain in this present life where at least we do have a conscious fellowship with the Lord?

2) Compare what Paul said in Phil. 1:23 with what he said in 2 Cor. 5:6-8. In the first place, the implications of what Paul taught Philippi, did not change from his teachings in the letter to Corinth. In 2 Cor. 5:6-8, Paul speaks of the possibility of being absent from the body. This is significant because it indeed implies that we do have souls which continue to exist after the body dies. And secondly, just like he taught in Philippi, he speaks of this state as his preferred one, which also signifies that not only do we continue to exist after death, but that we are also aware of our existence.


3) Once again we look back at the thief on the cross. It is very relevant to our discussion. In the King James Version it says:

“And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.”

-Lk. 23:43 (KJV)​

The New World Translation, (the version used by the Jehovah’s Witnesses) says:

“Truly I say unto you today, you shall be with me in paradise.”

-Lk. 23:43 (NWT)​

This particular interpretation gives the impression that the word “today” refers to the time of Jesus’ statement. But here it is argued against because of the context of that passage in particular. The “today” of verse 43 refers to “when” the thief on the cross would be with Jesus in paradise, because Jesus is directly responding to the thief’s request from verse 42.

“Lord, remember me when thou cometh into thy kingdom.”

-Lk. 23:42 (KJV)​

When taken strictly in the context for which it is said, it demands that Jesus’ answer be taken as: “Not only will I remember you when I come into my kingdom, but already today you shall be with me in heaven.”

4) Lastly, in Revelation 6:9 we read:

“...I saw under the altar the souls of them that were slain for the word of God, and for the testimony which they held.”

The souls of these saints which were slain, or killed because of their faith in the word, or slain because of their own personal testimony, are not in that state called “soul-sleep” because of two reasons, first they are seen alive; and secondly, in verse 10, they are heard to say:

“How long O Lord, holy and true, dost thou not judge and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the earth?”

-Rev. 9:10 (KJV)​

If these saints are in that state of “soul-sleep” how can they be seen alive and in heaven, under the altar, let alone crying out for God to avenge them? We must therefore logically, nay, scripturally say that there is indeed an “intermediate state.” A state that exists which is in-between the time of death and the resurrection, where the unsaved at death are placed in an area where just like the rich man, they are reserved unto judgment, being in torments, in contrast to believers who like the thief on the cross will in paradise.
One final thought regarding the notion of “soul-sleep.” As stated earlier, here we present evidence that contradicts the notion of “soul-sleep.” The belief of the two sided conception of Hades, one side called paradise and the other side called Hades, came into belief sometime during the exile. It seems to have come from an influence of both Persian and Hellenistic ideas concerning retribution after death where the righteous and the wicked had different fates with the first instance being in Enoch 22.

“Strangely enough, Josephus also records that about this same time the Pharisees show up on the scene and they hold to this particular viewpoint”[2]

This line of thought was still being developed at the time of Jesus. This is seen from Jesus Himself because He knows the souls of both the righteous and the wicked are in the “underworld.” (Job 10:21, 26:5; Psa. 89:49) But it is remarkable that Jesus also knew that the righteous and the wicked are separated into vastly different places as seen in His teachings in Luke 16:19-31.[3]
The New Testament conception of Hades is closely linked with that of Judaism. And is seen clearly in Jesus’ teaching of Luke 16:19-31. When placed in comparison with Enoch 22, the depiction of Hades corresponds to the average popular opinion of the people at the time.[4]

[1] Ibid

[2] Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews, 18, 14

[3] H. L. Strack and P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT aus Talmud und Midrasch, 1922, IV, 1017, 1019-22.

[4] Ibid, 1019

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

This means that certain ideas of Hades are common to the whole of the N.T. So that what we are left with is that the notion of “soul-sleep” is as foreign to the N.T. as it is to Judaism. The image of sleep as seen in the Greek word “kaimaw” as in Mark 5:39; 1 Thes. 5:10; John 11:11-12, is just a euphemism used for death.[1]
Combined with our Lord’s teachings, we can say that upon death, the souls of both the righteous and the wicked, the wicked descend to the underworld and are interred in hell during the time they will stay there until they are resurrected and joined with their body to stand in judgment before the Lamb, and the righteous ascend into heaven and are in the presence of the Lord, where they shall:

“…and so shall we ever be with the Lord.”

-1 Thes. 4:17 (KJV)​

​

Jesus Himself teaches about two resurrections. If the reader does not believe it, see what the scriptures say:

“Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.”

-John 5:28-29 (KJV)​

​

Concerning the resurrection of the just, there will be little discussion because the whole of those that believe in the resurrected Savior, have the blessed hope and promise that because He has arisen, we shall also. The Apostle Paul argues this point well in Corinth:

“Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead? But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:”

-1 Cor. 15:12-13 (KJV)​

​

And by our own confession of our belief in the risen Savior and by our Baptism in Him, we have this promise:

“Therefore we are buried with him by baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.”

-Rom. 6:4 (KJV)​

​

And by this act of faith, we become a member of His body:

“Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ?”

-1 Cor. 6:15 (KJV)​

​

So in light of all this evidence, it would logically lead us to the conclusion that Paul preached so well. Jesus Christ was the only person who ever defeated death. Now one may argue that Jesus called many back from the dead such as Lazarus, but what Jesus did is not worthy to be compared with His resurrection. Notice that Jesus called Lazarus back from the grave:

“And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, Lazarus, come forth.”

-John 11:43 (KJV)​

​

When Lazarus came out of the grave, notice well that he did not have that glorified body that Jesus had when He arose from the dead. (Jn. 20:17) He arose with the same body that he was buried with. And with the help of Paul’s preaching, we now know that Jesus was indeed the first fruit of the dead. And Paul goes further to tell us that since:

[1] Joachim Jeremias, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, Edited by: Gerhard Kittle, Translated by: Geoffrey W. Bromiley, D. Litt., D.D., Eerdman's Publishing, Grand Rapids, MI, 1964, reprinted 2006, Vol. I, a-r, p. 148, 1.a

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

“But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.”

-1 Cor. 15:23 (KJV)​

​

And we also add weight to Paul’s teachings by what he wrote to Thessalonica and Corinth. (1 Thes. 4:13-18; 1 Cor. 15:51-54) And having said all this, there is no further discussion about the “resurrection of life.” Now let us look at the other resurrection.
So now we move on to the “resurrection of damnation.” It has been previously shown that the ungodly, wicked people will upon death suffer for a time, in that intermediate state, between death and the resurrection, in that place that is opposite paradise called Hades or hell. When Jesus returns, the Bible tells us that He will:

“...judge the quick and the dead at his appearing”

-2 Tim. 4:1 (KJV)​

​

The “quick” in this verse, are those who upon His return are the ones that are found to be “in him.” Noted theologian John Gill says this concerning this passage of scripture:

“...it is certain there will be a general judgment; the day is appointed, and Christ is ordained the Judge of all men; all judgment is committed to him, and he is ready to exercise it; for which he is abundantly qualified, being God omniscient and omnipotent; and which he will execute in the most righteous and impartial manner. The persons that will be judged by him are, "the quick and the dead"; by which are meant, not the different parts of men, their souls which are living and immortal, and their bodies which die and will be raised from the dead, though they will be judged in their whole persons; nor the different sorts of men, as good men, who are made alive by the Spirit and grace of God, and evil men, who are dead in trespasses and sins, and die in their sins; though this is a truth that God will judge both the righteous and the wicked: but rather by the "quick", are meant, such as will be found alive at Christ's coming; and by the "dead", such as having been dead, will be raised by him; and in short, the characters include all mentioned; who must all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”[1]

So what we have here is the “quick” being those who are found in Him, and the dead, both those who are in hell, and even those who are “...dead in your sins.” (Col. 2:13) This is to be taken that there will be those who are alive at His return and yet are “dead” as they stand, because they are “dead in their sins. Based strictly on the teaching of Jesus concerning the rich man and Lazarus, the notion of a temporal hell should seen totally logical.
However, there will be those who reject this teaching because they base their line of thought solely on the belief that this is a parable, therefore it cannot be used to teach such spiritual truths such as the existence of hell. Their theory however, is not able to “hold water” because a parable is a general term for a figurative saying. And in order to understand a parable we should remember this: The story (the image) is a window through which a larger reality (the referent) is depicted. And to answer the unbelievers who argue against the story of the rich man and Lazarus being a picture of what is in store for believers and unbelievers alike, we answer with is bit of scripture:

“The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:”

-2 Pet. 2:9 (KJV)​

​

Since our God has provided a way for believers to escape temptations (1 Cor. 10:13), is He therefore not able to provide a way to hold the ungodly in a place until the day of judgment? God has kept those angels which rebelled with Satan against God in heaven, and according to scriptures, God:

“And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.”

-Jude 1:6 (KJV)​

​

If it is possible for God to keep these angels bound by “everlasting chains” and in “darkness” until the judgment day, why would it seem impossible, and out of character for God to have a place of temporal punishment for the ungodly where they will be held until that great judgment day? Answer? It would not. And as shown previously, the notion of “soul-sleep” is as foreign to the Bible as it was to Jesus. So it is certain that there is an afterlife.
A person once asked: “How can the unsaved be resurrected to life since resurrected life is only possible through Jesus Christ?” Look at that question again. We as Christians, have as our example Jesus Christ. In fact, the Greek word “cristianoV” as used in Acts 11:26, means “follower of Christ” or “little Christ.” When we call ourselves Christian, we take the title of “follower of Christ” and we become “little Christ’s.” We become a follower of Christ by putting into practice His teachings in the Bible. And by doing just that, we are “little Christ’s” in our daily life. And in another sense, we become disciples of Christ the same as the twelve did.
To consider this matter in the light of how it should be, we must turn to Jesus’ resurrection. For it is here, that the matter comes to perfect light. When Jesus died on the cross, Joseph of Arimathaea was a “secret disciple of Christ. He had to come out of secrecy when he went before Pilate to beg for Jesus’ body. When given it, he wrapped it in clean linen, placed it in his own tomb, and a great stone was rolled in place to guard the tomb contents. And as all believers know, this was not the end of the story, in fact, it was just the beginning.
Jesus didn’t just lay there idle in the tomb, no, He had another ministry to do:

“By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;”

-1 Pet. 3:19 (KJV)​

​

As to what the ramifications of that particular scripture means, it isn’t relevant to this particular discussion. Rather the reference is to show that although He had not yet been resurrected, He was still alive after He was placed in the tomb and declared “legally dead.” And then after “three days and three nights in the heart of the earth” (Matt. 12:40), He arose from the dead. But how did this happen?
If one would read the book of Acts, we are told over and over again that it was by the power of God that Christ arose from the grave. (Acts 2:24, 32; 3:15, 26; 4:10; 5:30; 10:40; 13:30, 33, 37; 17:31) It brings to mind what is said in the Old Testament:

“The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.”

- 1 Sam. 2:6 (KJV)​

​

When the Apostle Paul went before King Agrippa, Paul asked him:

“Why should it be thought a thing incredible with you, that God should raise the dead?”

-Acts 26:8 (KJV)​

[1] John Gill’s Exposition of the Whole Bible, 2 Timothy, Chapter 4, Verse 1, [commentary on-line], accessed 9/18/06, found on the World Wide Web at: John Gill's Exposition of the whole Bible.

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

So dear reader, if God has the power to take a handful of dust, form it into a man, breathe the breath of life into him so that he became a living soul, why should it seem strange that God could through His own power take the dust of the ungodly ones who had died, bring them back to life, unite their soul with their body, to stand before the Son in judgment?
Another question that was asked was: “Eternal life in hell is still eternal life. So how can the unsaved have eternal life without accepting Jesus Christ?”
To qualify the answer that needs to be given, it must be stated up front that there is a vast difference between the two ideas of “eternal life.” Eternal life with God is just that, eternal life. An eternal existence in the lake of fire also known as “the second death,” is not life by any standard or stretch of the imagination. It is just the opposite of what the Christian calls eternal life. Well, what are the benefits of eternal life through Jesus Christ? The benefits of eternal life through Jesus Christ would really be too numerous to list. But one blessing in this life is that we have the promise that we have:

“...passed from death unto life.”

-Luke 5:24 (KJV)​

​

Another blessing in this life is a two-fold one promised by the Savior that we will:

“...I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

-John 10:10 (KJV)​

In this life, we can have and live a fuller and richer life on this temporary earth because of Him. And then when this life is over, an even richer life than we’ve ever known before is awaiting us. But to illustrate some, we will turn to the book of Revelations and see what Jesus has promised all those who have “overcome.”

1) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God. (Rev. 2:7)
2) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death. (Rev. 2:11)
3) He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the hidden manna, and will give him a white stone, and in the stone a new name written, which no man knoweth saving he that receiveth it. (Rev. 2:17)
4) And he that overcometh, and keepeth my works unto the end, to him will I give power over the nations: And he shall rule them with a rod of iron; as the vessels of a potter shall they be broken to shivers: even as I received of my Father. And I will give him the morning star. (Rev. 2:26-28)
5) He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels. (Rev. 3:5)
6) Him that overcometh will I make a pillar in the temple of my God, and he shall go no more out: and I will write upon him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, which is new Jerusalem, which cometh down out of heaven from my God: and I will write upon him my new name. (Rev. 3:12)
7) To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. (Rev. 3:21)

Now these are but a few of the blessings which are promised to those who Jesus has given eternal life through Him in the life which is yet to come. Now we must look at what is promised to those who reject the gift of salvation through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

Those who reject Jesus Christ stand condemned already:

“He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God... He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”

-John 3:18,36 (KJV)​

​

And there it is, not only is the unbeliever condemned and has the wrath of God abiding on them, whatever their existence is, rest assured that it isn’t the eternal life believers have been promised. So what is in store for those are condemned, under the wrath, and without life? The Bibles says that after judgment:

“And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.”

-Rev. 20:15 (KJV)​

​

But before any more is said on this, we must come to an understanding on what is and what isn’t hell. Hell, that place the wicked dead go to be punished until the day of judgment, is not to be confused with the lake of fire. The Hades that Jesus taught of in Luke 16:19-31, and the lake of fire that awaits the unbeliever after the great judgment day, are two different places, with two different types of punishment. In the passage of scripture where Jesus teaches us about Hades, when the rich man wakes up, we can see five things right off the bat about this place:

a. There will be torments in this place. (Lk. 16:23)
b. They will be in torments because of flames. (Lk. 16:23)
c. There will be an unquenchable thirst. (Lk. 16:24)
d. There will be no escape from this place. (Lk. 16:26)
e. They will be awake, alive, and have feeling. (Lk. 16:23-24)

It is at this point also that two very important things must be shown about this place that most seem to either overlook, or just don’t seem to understand. In the first place, Hades or hell, is only temporary! Those who go there will only have to endure this place but for a limited time. More on this later. Secondly, this place is a “type” or fore-shadow” of something which according to scriptures, is far, far worse, that is yet to come.
When we say “type” it should be explained what is meant. In the Old Testament, Moses was a “type” or “shadow” of the Christ, which was to come:

“The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken;”

-Deut. 18:15 (KJV)​

​

As Moses was a “type” of Christ, because Moses delivered the Hebrews out of Egypt, so the promised Messiah would deliver them from their sins:

“for he shall save his people from their sins.”

-Matt. 1:21 (KJV)​

​

So as Moses was a type of Christ, and pointed to the true Messiah, so Hades is a type or shadow and points us the true hell, the lake of fire, which is yet to come.
Since hell is a type of what is yet to come, what is the lake of fire? The lake of fire was not a place that was originally made for mankind. Rather it was created for Satan and his angels:

“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: “

-Matt. 25:41 (KJV)​

​

So if a person is placed in the lake of fire, then technically, they would be a foreigner. But in the broader sense, those who reject God’s gracious offer of salvation in Jesus Christ, they then become servants or angels of Satan:

“No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”

-Matt. 6:24 (KJV) ​

​

And:

“He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.”

-Matt. 12:30 (KJV)​

​

There is no gray area in this respect. Either God is your master, or Satan is your master. Either you work for the master, or you work for Satan. So if God isn’t your master, what awaits the servant whose master is Satan?
The book of Revelations describes the lake of fire as a “bottomless pit.” (Rev. 9:2) It is a place where the unsaved person will be falling forever downwards , deeper and deeper with each passing second. But if that was all there was to it, it wouldn’t be so bad. But that isn’t the whole picture. Another aspect of the lake of fire is just that, fire. Jesus said:

“Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire,”

-Matt. 25:41 (KJV)​

​

The prophet Isaiah warned of this terrible place centuries before Jesus’ teachings:

“For Tophet is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared; he hath made it deep and large: the pile thereof is fire and much wood; the breath of the LORD, like a stream of brimstone, doth kindle it.”

-Isa. 30:33 (KJV)​

​

In this passage, Isaiah tells us that this place was made long ago. It was prepared for its king. It is large and deep. There is a pile of much wood that is on fire. And finally, just as fire and brimstone destroyed the ancient cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, God’s breath is like a stream of brimstone that keeps feeding the fire thus enabling it to continue burning continuously. Jesus Himself said that the lake of fire was a:

“...lake which burneth with fire and brimstone.”

-Rev. 21:8 (KJV)​

​

The Bible also says that it will be a place where the unsaved that are cast into this place will:

“...Bind him hand and foot, and take him away and cast him into outer darkness.”

-Matt. 22:13 (KJV)​

​

Well this poses another question, how can there be absolute darkness where the ungodly, unsaved will be? Jesus said:

“...I am the light of the world.”

-John 9:5 (KJV)​

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

Likewise, in heaven Jesus is the light of heaven. (Rev. 21:23) While we were lost in sin, it is said that we were in darkness and:

“...stumbleth, because there is no light in him.”

-John 11:10 (KJV)​

​

So that we now know that because Jesus is the light of this world and the world that is yet to come, we have the light of Jesus within us. This means that those who don’t have the light in them are left in darkness. So that while Jesus is the light of heaven the lake of fire, the other place, is without the Light. And those who are cast into this place will be bound hand and foot so that they can’t move and cast into outer darkness. There is another passage that tells us it will be a place of great sorrow:

“...there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”

-Matt. 23:13 (KJV)​

​

When one weeps, they are crying. On the way to Calvary, women were crying when they looked upon the Savior. Beaten, scared, battered, and bleeding, carrying His cross to Calvary, but our Savior said to them:

“...Daughters of Jerusalem, weep not for me.”

-Luke 23:28 (KJV)​

​

On could say the ungodly are crying because they are in so much pain from the burning of the fire. And they would be only partially right. King David said:

“...my transgressions: and my sin is ever before me.”

-Psa. 51:3 (KJV)​

​

Two possible explanations come to mind when speaking of the weeping in the lake of fire. In one sense, it could be that every sin the unsaved ever committed flash before their eyes as they are in torments in that place. The sorrow and regret they experience will only add to the pain as every sin, every curse word, every evil thought comes up before them to remind them of what they did to be cast into this place. And in another sense, it could be that they will remember every person who called on them and witnessed to them of God’s gracious offer of salvation and a chance to escape this awful place. Every church they passed, every Sabbath when they were playing golf, or washing the car, or cutting the grass, or boating out on the lake, could come to mind. When they should have been in church, worshipping the Lord, they were too busy thinking of self. To think of just how easy it would have been to escape this place if they would have only asked God to come into their life and save them.
Another aspect of this place will be “their worm:”

“Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.”

-Mark 9:44 (KJV)​

​

As to the absolute full meaning of this verse, no one is for sure. It could be a literal worm eating away at the person. It could be a worm eating away at their conscious as previously stated. Either way, whatever its meaning, it will be there.
And one last final thought before this is summed up. That temporary place called hell, when the souls of the ungodly, unsaved are brought before the righteous judge, that place will not be a place where sins are purged as one religion likes to teach. Whenever the sinner stands before Jesus to be judged, whatever sins the person has committed will cling to them like static electricity holds a sock to a pair of pants. What is sowed in corruption will be raised in corruption. The Bible says:

“He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still:”

-Rev. 22:11 (KJV)​

​

The great Puritan John Bunyan said:

​

“…all these places, with many others, do rather point at a corrupt soul, than a corrupt body; for, indeed, sin and all spiritual wickedness, they have their seat in the heart and soul of a man, and by their using this or that member of the body, so defile the man; the weaknesses of the body, or that attend our material flesh and blood, they are weaknesses of another kind, as sickness, aches, pains, sores, wounds, defection of members, etc. Wherefore, where you read of flesh and blood, as rejected of God; especially, when it speaks of the flesh and blood of saints, you are not to understand it as meant of the flesh, which is their proper human nature, but of that weakness which cleaveth to it.”[1]

One other argument that needs addressing is the usage of the words “grave” and their various meanings. It is here that we will examine the two Hebrew words and the two Greek words that have been rendered “grave” and the misconception that whenever the word “grave” is in the text, it should always be rendered grave as meaning the place where the earthly flesh is buried.
In the Old Testament, there are two distinct words that mean grave. The first Hebrew word to look at is “לאחזת־קבר,” pronounced “keb-oo-raw”. For those who are interested, the Strong’s Number for this and the other word that draws it meaning from this word is #6900 and #6913. In English, it has been translated or rendered as “grave,” “sepulcher,” and “burying place.” Joseph bought a piece of land to use as a graveyard or buying place. A place where the body was placed in a grave, a sepulcher, or tomb, such as the one the Lord was placed in after the crucifixion. And according to Strong’s Concordance, it is used some sixty-six times in the Old Testament in this way. We see the same word used in Deut. 34:6 when the Lord buried Moses’ body:

“ויקבר אתו בגי בארץ מואב מול בית פעור ולא־ידע איש את־קברתו עד היום הזה׃”

-Deut. 34:6 (Masoretic Text)​

​

In the King James Version it reads as such:

“And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his sepulchre unto this day.”
-Deut. 34:6 (KJV)

[1] John Bunyan, The Resurrection of the Dead and Eternal Judgment, [article on-line] accessed 8/9/06, found on the World Wide Web at: The Resurrection Of The Dead, And Eternal Judgment:

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

That verse could have easily been translated “And he buried him in a valley in the land of Moab, over against Bethpeor: but no man knoweth of his grave unto this day.” The same root word is used here as it is in Genesis 50:13. This word, depending on context, would correctly be rendered grave, sepulchre, or tomb, to refer to a place where a dead body was laid to rest.
Now the other word to which we must look at is the other Hebrew word that is also rendered “grave.” The word is “שאלה,” pronounced “sheh-ole,” Strong’s Number #7585, from which we get our English word “sheol.” It is transliterated as “underworld,” “grave,” “hell,” and “pit.” This distinction shows the difference between the word used for a literal grave and the word used for hell. Whenever the Hebrew word “sheol” is in the text, it refers to that “underworld” or the abode of the dead. In the book of Numbers, we learn of Korah, Dathan, and Abiram. These men rose up against Moses and Aaron. And as a result, the people split between these men and Moses and Aaron. For their sins, God caused a great earthquake to open up the ground and these men along with those who followed them:

“They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the pit, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.”

-Num. 16:33 (KJV)​

​

This verse could have just as easily been translated as: “They, and all that appertained to them, went down alive into the hades, and the earth closed upon them: and they perished from among the congregation.” These people literally went alive down into the “underworld” or hell if you prefer. One could make the argument that all God really did was open a mass grave and buried them there alive. For the sake of argument, lets just for a moment say that is what the text means. Is there another passage of scripture that carries the same meaning? To state up front, this word is used some sixty-five times in the Old Testament. So let’s look at another verse which seems to carry a different meaning, but is yet the same word.
In Isaiah we are told:

“Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.”

-Isa. 14:15 (KJV)​

​

In the Hebrew text, it reads:

“אך אל־שאול תורד אל־ירכתי־בור׃”

-Isa. 14:15 (Masoretic Text)​

​

How come a different Hebrew word is used here instead of the word used in Deut. 34:6? The same root word is used here, but in two places it is rendered “hell” and also as “pit.” In this particular verse, God told Satan that He would bring him down to hell, to the very sides of the pit. Remember that in Isa. 30:33 calls it a pit. So Satan is standing at the very side of hell. Not in it, mind you, but at the side of it. But there are those who argue that the Hebrew word used here should also be translated grave with the same meaning as a literal grave. If that is the case, would you believe that God cast Satan out of heaven and down to a literal grave? The exact same type of grave that is used to hold dead lifeless bodies? There is no logical reason to believe this. So where does that leave us? As shown, there are two distinct words used in the Hebrew, to relate to two different places. One is a receptacle for the body, and one is the receptacle for the unsaved.
Suffice to say, the exact same thing happens in the New Testament. Two distinct words, translated the same way, but with two very different meanings. The Greek word for “grave,” “sepulchre,” and “tomb” is “mnhmeiou," pronounced “mnay-mi’-on,” Strong’s Number #3419, and is rendered as such. While the other Greek word used is “adou" pronounced “hah’-dace,” Strong’s Number #42, and is translated or rendered as “grave,” “hell,” or “Hades.” We see in the N. T. that a secret disciple, Joseph of Arimathaea, went to Pilate and begged the body of Jesus. He took it back, wrapped His body in clean linen, and placed it in his own tomb, which was hewn out of solid rock, and rolled a stone in front of the door to prevent thieves from stealing His body. (Matt. 27:57-60) The King James Version reads “sepulchre” for the burying place of Jesus. That word “sepulchre” is in the Greek: “mnhmeiou" which is taken to mean a tomb, grave or as the text has, sepulchre. Which is to be taken as meaning that Jesus’ body was laid in a grave. The place where the dead body is laid to rest. In fact, the same Greek word here is used earlier in Matt. 27:52 where it speaks of the graves opening up and the saints arising out of them. This is just one instance of the Greek word literally meaning grave.

Continued...

 

[DeaconDean]

On the other hand, we must turn to Jesus’ teachings on “Hades” to see the other Greek word. We have Jesus saying:

“And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.”

-Matt. 11:23 (KJV)​

​

The word that is rendered “hell” in this text is the Greek word “adou." As shown above this word is rendered grave, hell or Hades, and pit. Notice well what the scripture says. It does not say that Capernaum would be brought down to the grave. On the contrary, it says that it would be brought down to “Hades.” Notice also that in the Greek text it reads:

“kai su, kafarnaoum, mh ewV ouranou uywqhsh; ewV adou katabhsh. oti ei en sodomoiV egenhqhsan ai dunameiV ai genomenai en soi, emeinen an mecri thV shmeron."[1]

-Matt. 11:23 (Greek New Testament)​

This passage of scripture is roughly translated as:

“and you, Capernaum, who to the heaven have been exalted, to Hades will be cast down, because if in Sodom occurred the powerful (acts) happening in you, it would last until today.”[2]

The underlined word above, in the Greek text, is the Greek word for “Hades.” Notice that the Greek word for “grave,” “sepulchre,” and “tomb” is not used in this instance. That is important because it clearly shows there is a clear distinction of these two places. The Greek word for “Hades,” “adou," is used some fifteen times in the Gospels and in each instance, it is translated “Hades,” the abode of the wicked dead, and not “mnhmeiou" which means a literal grave. The same comments can be said of the Hebrew words for “grave” and “sheol.” There are two distinct words for each place that carry two different meanings. If you take these four words and use the premise that in each and every occurrence they should be translated alike such as grave, then you would be wrong and the Bible would be false. So we can say truthfully that “grave” and “sheol” or “Hades” are meant to mean two different things.
To summarize: As far back as the early to middle 1600’s, there was an expressed belief that after death both the righteous and the wicked leave their mortal bodies, and the soul sojourns in one of two places to await the arrival of the Savior. This is set forth in the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1642.
It is also a fact that within the last half century, the doctrine of Hell is one that that has been neglected in the pulpit either by choice or from over-preaching which has resulted in a denial of this once precious doctrine. This is seen not in the mass of the unsaved, as rather it is clearly seen most exclusively as from within the church itself.
John Thomas called it: “That Hideous Doctrine.” And indeed it has become just that here in the last quarter of the Twentieth century, and in the early Twenty First century. To most churches, it is becoming an offense to preach and/or teach about the wrath of God. The Apostle Paul warned the Christians at Thessalonica about a great “falling away.” (2 Thes. 2:3) And in light of a great many church doctrines being thrown to the side and discarded as “unbiblical,” we see with perfect clarity that we are now living in that time Paul prophesied about. We don’t have to wait for it to arrive; we are in it as we speak!
In order to understand the doctrine of hell, we must look at the Bible as a whole. Although Jesus taught this doctrine more often and more clearly than any before, His teachings on this subject are the ones which actually give the fullest glimpse into and the rewards due them that ultimately reject the gift of salvation. A study of our Lord’s words alone would prove this to be true.
It has been shown that there is indeed an “intermediate state.” Jesus’ own teachings of the rich man and Lazarus alone are sufficient to confirm this. And yet if one does not use the teachings this sets forth as proof that there is life after death, Jesus’ own resurrection from the dead and His subsequent appearance to the disciples and as seen by Stephen on his death show with a certainty that without a doubt there is a life after death. And it has been further shown, that the notion of “soul-sleep” from both the scriptures and from the history of this doctrine, that this doctrine or theory of “soul-sleep” is just not Biblical and cannot be supported in no way shape or form, and therefore must be discounted. Because this theory is as foreign to the Bible as it was to the Jews of Jesus’ time.
And it has been shown from scriptures that there will indeed be two resurrections, one unto life, and one unto damnation. (John 5:29) And that this was taught by Jesus Christ Himself. And it also bears true in the teachings of the Apostle Paul in so many places throughout the New Testament epistles.
And it has been further shown that God, who raised His Son from the dead, has the inherent quality within Himself as creator, and as Jesus showed in His earthly ministry, as the only omnipotent being, He has the power within Himself to raise the wicked dead so that they can stand before the throne to be judged by the things which are written in the book. Our God who took nothing and made the known and unknown universe, who also took a handful of dust, formed it into a man, breathed into it the “breath of life,” so that it became a living soul, indeed does have the power to raise the wicked dead so that they can receive their just rewards.
We have also shown there is a distinct difference between what is and what isn’t considered “eternal life.” Because we “have passed from death unto life,” we as Christians can now have life both in this world and the world to come, “more abundantly,” and the blessings the Christian receives in this life are not worthy to be compared with what is in store for us on that grand day when Christ shall return and receive to himself His children. Likewise, there are no blessings conferred from God, per se, on the ungodly in this life. The “eternal life” promised to Christians is as different as that promised to the “eternal existence” due to the wicked. This scriptures show to be as clear as the difference as night and day.
It has been shown from scriptures, namely our Lords own teachings, that there are two places of punishment. One place is a temporary place called hell. And one place that is eternal called the lake of fire. Scriptures clearly show that hell is only temporary because the wicked dead will be held here until the great judgment day, when death and hell will empty out those who will stand before the great throne to be judged, and then death and hell will be cast into the lake of fire. As the Old Testament had “shadows” or “types” of things to come, hell or “Hades” is but a shadow or type of an even worse punishment that is yet to come. And being as such, the torments of that lake of fire are vastly different than those of hell.
It has been shown also that in both the Old Testament and the New Testament, there are different words used to describe the “grave,” that place where this mortal body is laid to rest after death, and “Hades” or “sheol,” the underworld, the abode of the wicked dead, where the wicked dead will be in torments until the day of judgment. And it has been shown that this doctrine of separate places did pass from the Old Testament into the New Testament.
In conclusion: the doctrine of hell and the final state of the wicked dead have been so mixed through erroneous teaching and preaching, that both doctrines are generally considered one in the same, or are now considered to be unbiblical. To a great many of people who came through the 1960’s, the all to often “hell fire and brimstone” preaching that dominated that time period and the pulpits of America, have since de-sensitized Christianity to the point that not only is it now disbelieved it is neither taught or preached for what it really is. The doctrine of hell and eternal torments in the lake of fire was so important to God that He sent His only Son to save us from it. Our Savior saw it important enough that He preached on it more than any other topic.
Scriptures show that Jesus taught this doctrine. Jesus told His disciples that they were to teach others what He had taught them. (Matt. 28:19-20) If we leave this doctrine out of the Sunday school, or the pulpits, or even out of our seminaries, then we have not preached the whole gospel of God.
The doctrine of hell is rejected because God is not pictured as dispensing “righteous judgment,” rather in these modern days, God is pictured as the grandfather type who gives nickels, dimes, quarters, or dollars to those who are good, and spanking the wicked with a pillow covered paddle when they are bad.
The scriptures set forth here are a surety. Our God has not given revelation all at one time. He has chosen to reveal this progressively in time culminating in the teachings of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is the duty of every Christian not only to believe these doctrines, but we must preach and teach them to the generations living now as well as to those who will follow them.
The gift of God is eternal life with Him through Jesus Christ. The wages of sin is death, and to those who reject Jesus Christ as their personal Savior, the wrath of God “abideth on them.” To a minor degree, this wrath is revealed in the reality of hell. But yet in the worse degree, it is revealed to all the unsaved when they are cast alive in the lake burning with fire and brimstone, there to be tormented day and night for ever in the presence of the angels in heaven, and in the presence of the Lamb. And there you have it. Hades or hell is a reality. For our Savior preached more on this subject, than He did of the Fathers love. Hell is not eternal. It is only a temporary holding place. Hell is for all intents and purposes, is more like a holding cell, much like the “drunk tank” down at the county jail, the exception being that when one sobers up, you can be released from the “drunk tank. Only when you sober up in hell, there is no release. No amount of bail or no amount of bond posted will secure your release from hell. Hell is not a place of purging ones sins. You can rest assured that whatever sins you committed here on earth will still cling to you on the resurrection day because you will be “filthy still.” And finally, hell is only a type or shadow of punishment that is worse in nature, yet still to come.
So dear reader, if you have rejected this doctrine, please before another minute passes, re-read the scriptures. Examine your beliefs and doctrines and see if they match what God has revealed through His word and His Son.
Dear reader, if you don’t know the Lord as the “righteous judge,” who will reward us according to what we have sown in this body, whether good or bad, before another minute passes, please kneel and ask for His forgiveness before it is really: “Too Late!”

[1] Greek New Testament, [Bible on-line] accessed 9/25/06, Matthew 11, Verse 23, found on the World Wide Web at: Greek Bible

[2] Jay P. Green, Sr., General Editor and Translator, The Interlinear Bible, Hebrew-Greek-English, 1 Volume edition, copyrighted 1976, Published by: Hendrickson Publishers

From my paper: "Speaking of Hell, A 21st Century Look at the Doctrine of Hell"

Believe it or not, makes no difference to me. I have fulfilled my part, I've put the word out. Now it is up to the Holy Spirit to convict.

God BLess

Till all are one.

 

[Bernie02]

Greetings Deacon Dean,

Thanks for posting. Unfortunately, nothing you posted had anything to do with the OP. I have heard every argument you presented many times over in many different ways from lots of different people. You have presented not a single new wrinkle than is already out there in plenty already. I used to use these arguments myself and am well aware of them. I believe my universalism, what I call the rationally esoteric approach to Scripture interpretation, defeats them all and restores the truth of Scripture to a higher level of verity than orthodox soteriology is able to present.

So....I invite you to read the OP and direct your efforts to a refutation thereof. All that you posted is merely the interpretation of salvation according to orthodox doctrine. I present a beginning principle in the OP which, if correct, casts the veracity of orthodox view of salvation into immediate doubt. Hence, to post only snippets of orthodox interpretation as a rebuttal accomplishes nothing. This is merely the parroting of what is largely believed in Christianity, while I want to debate whether the prinicples underlying what is believed are properly held.

 

[DeaconDean]

Greetings Deacon Dean,

I have heard every argument you presented many times over in many different ways from lots of different people. You have presented not a single new wrinkle than is already out there in plenty already. I used to use these arguments myself and am well aware of them. I believe my universalism, what I call the rationally esoteric approach to Scripture interpretation, defeats them all and restores the truth of Scripture to a higher level of verity than orthodox soteriology is able to present.

Then refute that vicious pack of truth.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[Bernie02]

Rather than think along the lines of equating righteousness with intrinsic good, had you thought that Abraham was righteous before God because Abraham believed God as Paul had stated? The same being true of Lot and his family? Otherwise it seems your metaphor has put into place a works orientated scenario of who is wicked and who is good.

Fair question. Salvation is a works-oriented scenario--the works of God in human spirit, in and of His sovereign choice and not ours. I believe as per Jn 1:9 that the enlightenment of every human is a regenerational feature, that in time regeneration is fragmental and not complete. Thus, God's seed is to some degree planted in human spirit such that this area of spirit will never die (1Jn 3:9) completely. The worst a human being can do after being born of God's Spirit to any degree is let their spiritual life/perception die (e.g., we stain our spirit to the degree we no long abide or see Christ's call to proper moral choice) to the point of life only as that of a smoldering wick, while those who follow the leading of Christ undergo sanctification to full, flickering flame of spiritual life--and thus faith is established. But Sodom, though destroyed, has hope (Isa 42:3).
So you see, the intrinsic good I equate righteousness with is only inherent in human thought because God has planted His seed in human spirit. It follows that righteous thought must necessarily arise from some inner impetus, which must be able to create that propriety in reason we call "right". Right thinking does not follow from the false. Something inside must be created to be in synchronization with higher truth. I believe human spirit is the receptor of God's information, which is then imparted to the intellect or soul, producing righteous thought and act. So Abraham believed God because God created the means in Abraham to receive of His call and believe. This is not at odds with orthodoxy, methinks.

Again, that conversation revolved around righteous people such as Abraham who would have faith in God. As a christological universalist I can see you rationalizing your metaphor into what you've portrayed it as. Were you to think along the lines that righteousness was not mutually inclusive with the intrinsic good in people the you would understand why I stated that your logic was flawed in my first post of this thread. But I do understand your broader point of view.

I think I see what you're saying. You're right that I see a necessary connection between a literally true spirit or essence and the expression of literal righteousness in thought and act, as noted above. I do hold the imputed righteousness of Christ in time to be a different variety of righteousness, attained not entirely apart from the literal but distinct from it in that it is imparted to a human as a whole despite the whole's fragmented state. How can they not be mutually inclusive? If you can provide an explanation that makes sense, I can see where it might rebut the propositional structure of the OP.

....remember that Justice is also one of the colors used.

Not sure what significance this has in your thinking....? I think of the paints (the constituents of the metaphor) to be the raw materials God uses to communicate a higher principle. God's attributes (justice, mercy, lovingkindness, etc.) seem not to be of the paints themselves but part of the greater message each metaphor imparts. What do you see that I'm missing?

Yet the trees make up a forest. The individual people in Sodom were separated into wheat and tares just the same as all trees in the forest will be separated into wheat and tares at the very end of time.

Okay, agreed.

All the trees will make up a forest on a painted canvas. However, God created the canvas, supplied the paints, painted a lush background and roughed in individual sketches of trees and left jars of paint for us'n all to finish the artistry.

The level of His perfection is found in imputed righteousness of Jesus and not in intrinsic good found in peoples. A violation of such perfection would come about if the intrinsic good found in peoples were to be taken into account on judgement day. I'm sure you would agree with me on this.

Correct. I agree insofar as I understand you.
What I'm not seeing is how you suppose what I've presented denies the importance of Christ's imputed righteousness. What I contend for is that all have a usable amount of moral ability, by virtue of God's having created this capacity in us by regeneration, to chose correctly. Not only are we granted this by God's grace, but He continues throughout our life patiently cleansing, restoring spirit such that enough freedom exists (in an otherwise significantly darkened soul) to be able to believe His call to conformity. If we deny Him often enough, He lets go and we fail to gain the imputed righteousness of faith in time. These die in their sin (Jn 8:21, Prov 1:21-33) and face God's pure essence sans Christ's imputed righteousness--thus gain their purification the "hard way" of the sinner instead of the special or easy way (1Tim 4:10) of faith.
So, the intrinsic good found on judgment day is decidedly not taken into account. This fragmental inner purity is only the raw material supplied by God to all so we can unite with His ideas enough to see and consent. To the extent good in intellect and act follow from this is only what is to be expected from us--to whom much is given, much is expected. If you teach a man to fix shoes, he becomes a cobbler, not a plumber. God sprinkles our spirit with good so we learn and act good. Good acts are thus not of us, or of our own righteousness, even though they come from us. They arise from what God has worked in us. If He does not purify, we do not see; if He does not cleanse, we retain our union with darkness. Participation in sanctification is not to gain personal righteousness, it is to provide only an ability to participate with God to establish our faith. We aren't building it, He is. He is sovereign, and because He has in my understanding sovereignly chosen to save all, the only offer He makes us is to conform with Him in time to saving faith, or to be jealously purified in a single, terrible event at life's end or in the afterlife. All we do to run the race is believe or not believe, He does the rest, and as we are sanctified we come to realize that it was actually Him who even created our belief.

Categorically speaking, the colour palette contains only two; black and white. The colour palette in terms of potency is scarlet red, not varying shades of grey, because of the mixture of the two. It is this colour of scarlet red that God is dealing with which violates His perfection. The colour of white is not to be seen in it at all which is His Perfection.

I understand you to suppose that by presenting black and white in fragmented human essence as gray, I am placing varying degrees of goodness as inherent in human thought and behavior--and because of this, am not seeing the need for Christ's imputed righteousness. Is this correct? If so, I think I am not presenting my position adequately. In my thinking, "scarlet" would correctly describe the chasm between falsity and God's pure Truth. Further, the black + white = gray is only an view of causal reality, a technicality. B&W reality is how and where God deals with Israel and Sodom internally, in the literal. I see intellectual reality differently, as an emergent power that, while affected by the B&W reality of causation, yet exhibits its own unique capacities, including reason and will. This is where the imputation of Christ's righteousness is necessary and takes place. This is where scarlet appears. God deals with humans as a whole, and His declarations of blessing are to the person (soul, mind or intellect). But He deals in humans fragmentally, and His pronouncements of wrath find literal expression here. Inside human spirit, in behind the exclusive power of intellectual reality, bits and pieces, tares and wheat, sheep and goats are in constant, fluid motion, tidal forces rising and falling in the interactions between these contraries, imparting their undulating shades of 'gray' as dispositions to the receptive animation of life we call the soul. Thus imperfect, the vital soul is ever scarlet until that day God restores all in all to a complete true state of being. Literal and imputed righteousness, though they are interdependent and inexorably linked, are quite distinct in my thinking.

It would not be a violation of His Perfection to chop down and burn trees that are not white as snow. Dare I say that God is color blind?

Not unless there are any traces of whiteness in them, as noted in the OP. Not trying to be belligerent, just painting what I see, Gort.

Bernie, we agree on most things. I just think you're trying to rationalize christological universalism in that eventually all peoples who are condemned to the lake of fire will go through an exit door. I've yet to find any allusion in the scriptures to such an exit door. However, my faith is cemented in the thought that God is not willing that any should perish, that all might come to a knowledge of Jesus.

But all coming to Christ in time is possible in my soteriology. It may be that those who resist most stubbornly will be purified to faith in the waning moments of life, in the possible small eternity between one's last breath and the moment the spirit exits the body. God is more merciful than we know.
But even what I consider to be the more likely view, the one I contend for 'out front':
1) Christ atones for all. Atonement cancels death by promise that all false things will be restored to true.
2) God elects all in eternity, seals all in time (Jn 1:9), offers the easy way through conformity to Christ in life (sanctification to faith) by belief/acceptance of call. Reason: all will die in fragmented state, and white will be separated from black, sheep from goats, wheat from tares in judgment.
3) Those who conform in time acquire faith; those who refuse do not.
4) All die, all must pass through the lake of fire (God's holy essence); those with imputed righteousness of Christ are not harmed by roaring flames, but their falsity is repaired in a twinkling (1Cor 15:52); those not of faith undergo refinement in God's fiery embrace. The lake of fire is itself the great judgment.
You see, there is no "out" for unbelievers. Regeneration is regeneration, whether it's gradual and fragmentally applied in life or all at once in the lake of fire. In all cases, it is entirely Christological as it is only by His atonement that man is regenerated at all. Christ died that all who die are reborn and restored to life, whether accepting of Him in life or brought to conformity in the furnace. Paul teaches this in Rom 11.

btw, thanx for the good conversation

No, thank you. Funny, it's been a while, but I vaguely recall that we've had intereraction here before. Don't recall that you were a universalist, I have vague memories of Gort as a Calvinist. Getting old, don't retain very well these days. God bless.

 

[Bernie02]

Then refute that vicious pack of truth.

if by 'vicious pack of truth' you mean your cut and paste, I already have, in the OP, as noted. Can you refute it?

 

[Bernie02]

If universalism is true, that means there will be no one opposing Christ in His coming. That means that 2 Thess. 1:7-9 is nonsense.

No it doesn't. You seem to contend for the same type of Christological salvation as Gort. Look at it this way: Jesus died to save all, all are elected and sealed in eternity. Thus justified, God decrees that the purification of all to the proper state (wedding robes of literal righteousness) will be attained by regeneration because all sin stains and stains must be removed to make robes white. Regeneration hurts in ways God likens to plague, wind, hail, sword and, mostly, fire in OT. This requisite spiritual surgery can be applied two ways: gradually, having bits and pcs. purified/reborn over time, or all at once. First is hidden in trials and triublations of life, and is hardly noticeable. Second is 'all at once' and hurts like....you know what.

So, God offers salvation the easy (by sanctification to faith in time) way or hard (in the lake of fire) way, so that some choose the former and others the latter. Same method for believers and unbelievers, regenerational fire. Salted in time or thrown into the furnace after. Our in time, God's choice after. None escape Him. All are saved. God's will is done.

 

[Bernie02]

Hey Gort,

I just think you're trying to rationalize christological universalism

Can you explain this? What definition or what elements of savific Christology do you feel my view fails to address?

 

[gort]

Hey Gort,


Can you explain this? What definition or what elements of savific Christology do you feel my view fails to address?

From your last post you stated:

So you see, the intrinsic good I equate righteousness with is only inherent in human thought because God has planted His seed in human spirit. It follows that righteous thought must necessarily arise from some inner impetus, which must be able to create that propriety in reason we call "right".

This is the crux of your error; in equating righteousness with intrinsic good. Intrinsic good simply has no value on Salvific Avenue. I agree that intrinsic good is inherent in human thought and actions and I agree that it is in the same category as the righteousness of God but it stops at that point and has no further value in terms of salvation.

The worst a human being can do after being born of God's Spirit to any degree is let their spiritual life/perception die (e.g., we stain our spirit to the degree we no long abide or see Christ's call to proper moral choice) to the point of life only as that of a smoldering wick, while those who follow the leading of Christ undergo sanctification to full, flickering flame of spiritual life--and thus faith is established. But Sodom, though destroyed, has hope (Isa 42:3).

I don't think the christian can get to the point of a smoldering wick. Being reborn is comparable to the difference between night and day almost. The scriptures say those who are not reborn practice sin and those who are reborn cannot practice sin.

I think I see what you're saying. You're right that I see a necessary connection between a literally true spirit or essence and the expression of literal righteousness in thought and act, as noted above. I do hold the imputed righteousness of Christ in time to be a different variety of righteousness, attained not entirely apart from the literal but distinct from it in that it is imparted to a human as a whole despite the whole's fragmented state. How can they not be mutually inclusive? If you can provide an explanation that makes sense, I can see where it might rebut the propositional structure of the OP.

The are in the same category of sorts, yes, but are not mutually inclusive simply because one of them does'nt count in terms of salvation. At all. If Grace is defined as unmerited favour before God then it is by unmerited favour we are saved and having the commonality of intrinsic good in all peoples is simply how we were fashioned along with the commonality of body parts and no more. Salvation really has nothing to do with intrinsic good, salvation has entirely to do with sin.

What I'm not seeing is how you suppose what I've presented denies the importance of Christ's imputed righteousness. What I contend for is that all have a usable amount of moral ability, by virtue of God's having created this capacity in us by regeneration, to chose correctly. Not only are we granted this by God's grace, but He continues throughout our life patiently cleansing, restoring spirit such that enough freedom exists (in an otherwise significantly darkened soul) to be able to believe His call to conformity.

Perhaps I'm wrong, but I see you pointing out that we have a usable amount of moral abitlity by virtue of creation (I agree) but you phrase it in a process of regeneration. Regeneration can only occur the moment one has the imputed righteousness of Jesus instilled within them, the moment of being reborn, a new creation, a new creature. Otherwise there is no regeneration involved at all. There is no cleansing, no restoration of spirit attained to get to the point of being able to believe His call to conformity in the beloved Son.

Of course there is a general sort of Grace that is a light shed on all peoples; a rain that falls on both the just and unjust. But it is not regenerative and the imputed righteousness of Christ Jesus is contained within it.

If we deny Him often enough, He lets go and we fail to gain the imputed righteousness of faith in time. These die in their sin (Jn 8:21, Prov 1:21-33) and face God's pure essence sans Christ's imputed righteousness--thus gain their purification the "hard way" of the sinner instead of the special or easy way (1Tim 4:10) of faith.

We simply cannot lose imputed righteousness under any circumstances. One becomes sealed by the Holy Spirit unto the day of redemption. Jesus is with us always and the HS indwells us and convicts us of sin. There can be no other form of purification other than the blood of Christ Jesus.

So, the intrinsic good found on judgment day is decidedly not taken into account. This fragmental inner purity is only the raw material supplied by God to all so we can unite with His ideas enough to see and consent. To the extent good in intellect and act follow from this is only what is to be expected from us--to whom much is given, much is expected. If you teach a man to fix shoes, he becomes a cobbler, not a plumber. God sprinkles our spirit with good so we learn and act good. Good acts are thus not of us, or of our own righteousness, even though they come from us. They arise from what God has worked in us. If He does not purify, we do not see; if He does not cleanse, we retain our union with darkness. Participation in sanctification is not to gain personal righteousness, it is to provide only an ability to participate with God to establish our faith. We aren't building it, He is. He is sovereign, and because He has in my understanding sovereignly chosen to save all, the only offer He makes us is to conform with Him in time to saving faith, or to be jealously purified in a single, terrible event at life's end or in the afterlife. All we do to run the race is believe or not believe, He does the rest, and as we are sanctified we come to realize that it was actually Him who even created our belief.

I can generally agree with you until you get to the point I put in bold above. I do not hold with your thoughts of purification, regeneration and sanctification though at all. These are processes for the reborn only and are already a finished process in heaven. The natural man (and we all were or still are) are born into a world which we gaze upon in awe and we all ask the same questions of ourselves concerning life, the universe and all the wonders we see. We all have ten fingers an inherent good instilled within us and we all get up in the morning and put our pants on one leg at a time. And we were all blind to God. We all, deep down had a conviction, knew what we're supposed to do about God and we didn't do it. We might have gone to church anyways, we prolly could'nt wait to get out. Perhaps we were a Pharisee in church. Perhaps we were like Billy Graham, an alter boy for years before he got saved. Or maybe we thought we were good to go by giving a concerted lip service and then practice a little bit of sin. There really is no purification nor sanctification involved here because there really is no godly repentence involved.

I understand you to suppose that by presenting black and white in fragmented human essence as gray, I am placing varying degrees of goodness as inherent in human thought and behavior--and because of this, am not seeing the need for Christ's imputed righteousness. Is this correct? If so, I think I am not presenting my position adequately. In my thinking, "scarlet" would correctly describe the chasm between falsity and God's pure Truth.

No, I see you putting the imputed righteousness of Christ in the proper place. But I do see you putting a value of sorts in inherent good simply because we have an intrinsic good. In my refute of your OP I am putting no value whatsoever in inherent good just as I put no value in having 10 toes. In my thinking, the colour scarlett is in reference to the shade of sin only and I feel justified with it from biblical terminology.

No, thank you. Funny, it's been a while, but I vaguely recall that we've had intereraction here before. Don't recall that you were a universalist, I have vague memories of Gort as a Calvinist. Getting old, don't retain very well these days. God bless.

Yes, I recall past conversations with you, about what I don't remember. That age thing, yes? I don't hang around here much anymore. Gort is stuck somewhere between Calvinist and Arminianism but leaning more to Calvinism. I consider it all Gods work in the salvific process but there is an educated...cough..very educated ...individual choice involved I recall Calvinists hold to Adam and Eve making the same educated choice in the garden, I would hold the same view for all today. If those who make such an informed choice, then it is holding with the thought of those that God is searching for; those who would worship Him in spirit and truth.

 

[Bernie02]

Greetings Gort,
Thanks for responding.
After more than a year of trying to find an educated rebuttal of the principle established in the OP, only you have attempted a rational, reasonable response. I appreciate and applaud your willingness to engage in honorable debate.
I wanted to respond to some points you've made in the discussion thus far. Also, will list the reasons I feel your refutation doesn't work...
From your last post you stated:

So you see, the intrinsic good I equate righteousness with is only inherent in human thought because God has planted His seed in human spirit. It follows that righteous thought must necessarily arise from some inner impetus, which must be able to create that propriety in reason we call "right".
This is the crux of your error; in equating righteousness with intrinsic good. Intrinsic good simply has no value on Salvific Avenue. I agree that intrinsic good is inherent in human thought and actions and I agree that it is in the same category as the righteousness of God but it stops at that point and has no further value in terms of salvation.

1) Just to clarify again, I'm not saying we're saved because we practice some good, but we practice some good because we're saved.
2) You've appear to admit a necessary connection between some real inner state and the outer production of righteous acts. In light of this, your steadfast refusal to allow any connection whatever (unless I've misunderstood you) between this inner state and salvation itself is puzzling as it seems to me to lead to an incoherent metaphysic and doctrine. For example, you state, "Being reborn is comparable to the difference between night and day almost. The scriptures say those who are not reborn practice sin and those who are reborn cannot practice sin." While you don't elaborate on this condition of being reborn and its associated effects, to say the reborn do not sin seems at least an implicit acknowledgement of something produced (not sinning) from some inner state (rebirth), which would presumably be taken as a sign of being saved. Even if by "not sinning" you mean the knowledge by an individual that all sins, past and future, are forgiven by one's faith (with which I would agree), there would still be presented to other viewers that certain knowledge possessed by the one who has faith--and thus a connection between a supposed state of inner righteousness and its outer expression. In this, you appear to allow yourself the freedom to associate certain effects and conditions with salvific reality while denying the same courtesy to me. Beyond this, though, although you deny me a working rationale for the elements of inner spiritual life, you offer no real competing spiritual/moral mechanism as an alternative. This is one part of a larger incoherence, more about which in a moment.

Your logic is flawed because you are confusing the good with the righteous. It is not that God is going to eternally punish or destroy the good, it is the unrighteous who will suffer.

3) I believe I've provided a reasonable working Biblical theology refuting this alleged 'confusion', which you either are not grasping or simply won't allow, despite its coherence. By demanding that the unrighteous suffer [presumably in hell] while the unrighteous do not, you are actually bringing into the open the tension orthodox salvation produces which the OP solves. The fact that you're using this to "refute" my universal salvation brings us to the primary incoherence of your position....
4) The main reason your refutation fails is that your reasoning is circular. I establish in the OP a principle by which the traditional view of salvation fails logically. Doctrine is an interpretation established from both the literal meaning of the Scriptures and the principles which arise from it--yours, mine, tradition's and everyone else's. Your refutation fails because you try to refute a logical principle with established doctrine. This is circular and backwards. You are essentially saying, "Your logic fails because it does not harmonize with popular doctrine". One of my biggest frustrations with traditionalists is that they use doctrine as though it were truth itself. Doctrine is not identical to truth, it cannot be wholly true until all tensions within it have been resolved.
The point is, all interpretations should be subjected to tests of truth. A big part of the reason the OP was developed is to show that traditional salvation does not pass at least one very important truth test. This test is crucial because it immediately throws into doubt the veracity of the orthodox understanding of hell as a condition of eternal torment. Not only that, if correct, it leads automatically and logically to a domino effect which culminates in a resolution of the main tensions orthodox views of salvation present and are unable to resolve.
It seems to me that to refute the proposition noted in the OP--that the notion of God destroying or assigning to eternal separation and/or punishment a human in which some good exists is discordant--you will have to show how the presented logic is itself faulty according to its own merits. Hence, the use of the distinction between imputed and literal righteousness (an orthodox, primarily Calvinist, doctrine) does nothing to contradict the logic of the OP. In using it you are only really stating "God can do what He wants because He chooses to whom He imputes righteousness and to whom He chooses not to impute righteousness and this choice alone determines who is saved and who is not." The Op was presented in large part to show the futility of this very doctrine, and further, that God anticipated its value in debunking the notion of eternal hell by hiding its refutation in esoteric (hidden) form--in plain sight, near the beginning of the Bible.
Finally, you posted this in another thread on universal salvation:

Either there is this life and then the judgment or there is this life, the judgment and an exit door from the lake of fire or hell. And there is no mention of any exit door. Every debate about UR ends up talking about an exit door. No matter how many times someone tells you there is an exit door, there isn't one to be found in the scriptures.

....and restated it in this one....

I just think you're trying to rationalize christological universalism in that eventually all peoples who are condemned to the lake of fire will go through an exit door. I've yet to find any allusion in the scriptures to such an exit door. st of this thread. But I do understand your broader point of view.

This went over my head when I read it, but find it important to respond now that I caught it. I think you have tried to understand my broader point of view, and I applaud your efforts, Gort. But I think you miss enough of the details to not put the pieces together.
First, the fact that you see no one finding an 'exit door' from the lake of fire does not mean there is not one. It only means that you have not found one. The most weight this observation can carry is to say the Scriptures are silent on the matter in your understanding. Silence has no power to prove or disprove...it only has the power to say that the Bible says nothing on a particular issue or idea.
Second, in my universalism I make no claim that anyone finds an exit door from the lake of fire. Tradition fails, imho, to understand what hell and the lake of fire really are because they do not see the metaphors God paints and harmonizes in both Testaments on this subject.
1) The lake of fire is God Himself. Representationally, it is God's pure Truth: His holy essence. But this is only half the tale; the definition of hell is the other half.
2) Hell, generally speaking, is the word used to describe:
a) the annihilation of any iota of falsity, that opposite property of God's purity, and,
b) the tension and resistance raised in the human mind by "a".
Thus, there is no 'exit door' from the lake of fire, as testified to by God: "'Now the end is upon you, and I shall send My anger against you; I shall judge you according to your ways, and I shall bring all your abominations upon you. For My eye will have no pity on you, nor shall I spare you, but I shall bring your ways upon you, and your abominations will be among you; then you will know that I am the LORD!’" (Ezek 7:3-4) What is destroyed in the hell of the lake of fire is the fragmental falsity which stains human spirit. Once these 'tares', 'goats', etc. are destroyed, hell disappears from the perception of the one who was previously writhing in fiery torment. The "hell" of tension and resistance (torment) is raised in the apprehension of the one not dressed in the wedding robes of faith as his purification is performed without mercy: "Therefore thus says the LORD, 'Behold I am bringing disaster on them which they will not be able to escape; though they will cry to Me, yet I will not listen to them.'" (Jer 11:11)
No exit door. All must pass through the furnace of God's holiness (Heb 9:27). Those of faith will walk into the presence of God (lake of fire) like Daniel's friends in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace (Dan 3). And when even unbelievers are brought to a state of perfection (a wholly true soul), hell disappears. As the stain of sin is burned away from human spirit, the pain recedes, the torment wanes. As spiritual death is consumed and replaced by new life, the Scriptures are reconciled: "And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire." (Rev 20:14), and, "But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Rev 21:8) Hell disappears as falsity is consumed and the soul is made one (existing in a true state) with God. This comes first in the special salvation (1Tim 4:10) of faith in time (Jn 17:17-23), with Jesus' promise for all (Jn 12:32) being fulfilled without mercy in the lake of fire judgment (1Cor 3:11-15). This view resolves the tensions traditional salvation raises.
Death is a product of the false, that which corrupts the truth. All goods proceed from the highest value, the true, with life itself a primary good. Thus, death (which is replaced with life as falsity is destroyed) is destroyed in the lake of fire, along with hell (the mind's apprehension of falsity's destruction). When finished, the unbeliever is also restored to the purity of life and walks in the furnace unscathed, death and hell gone and the smoke of their former torment gone up forever and ever, never to return.