post-mortem punishment

[thelasttrumpet]

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

I'm not following your argument here. And what "present judgment" are you talking about? And what do you mean by, "the words Jesus is using here have never been understood as figurartive." Understood by who?

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

You can't treat God's word this way. Your method of argument answers two different ways depending on what phrase you examine.

Again, I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Please elaborate.

How does snuffing people out make God a "God of life"? How does hating people make God a "God of love"?

When did I ever say God was "a God of life" or "a God of love?" Are you confusing me with someone else?

Again, your argument doesn't carry because it's inconsistent. It doesn't apply to any other concepts of Who God is. Why should it apply to "comfort" above all other attributes of God? Hm?

Again, who are you talking to? I never said God was "a God of comfort." You're the one that was using that expression, and I denied that our "comfort" was a priority for God (which is obvious from the world in which we live, which can often be very uncomforatable). "God is love," but God is not "comfort."

But perhaps you're arguing that, if everyone is ultimately saved (from sin and death), then that would somehow undermine God's justice, or his righteousness, or his holiness. If that's what you're saying, then I would ask why you think such would be the case.

Because what God says concludes as much, that's why.

Well that's certainly what you're trying to prove, but so far, I must say, without any success. I deny that "what God says concludes as much." God doesn't say any such thing. You're mistaken.

Why do you go to such extents as to argue Scripture doesn't mean what it flatly says?

And I might ask you the same question. You're the one making scripture stand on its head in John 5, just because you need it to teach what you thought was such an obvious doctrine (that of post-mortem punishment). And if you're wondering what I mean by "making scripture stand on its head," then look back at my objections to your understanding of John 5.

You've asserted what Scripture denies. People won't be fully punished for their sins in this life. "It's appointed to men once to die. After that, the judgment." It's not "During that, the judgment." It's after.

I deny that the author of Hebrews is even talking about literal death here. But even if he is, the only judgment said to follow literal death is stated in Genesis 3:19 (and if it be anything else, the judgment could be positive for all you know; not all judgment is negative, as I'm sure you're well aware). But again, I do not believe the author even has physical death in view here. If you read the entire chapter, you'll notice that the structure and context of the passage encompasses the perpetual sacrificial work of the High Priests, and how what Christ did is superior. The continuous and imperfect ministry of the Old Covenant High Priests was but a type of what Christ accomplished.

The word "men" in verse 27 is preceeded by the Greek definite article tois. In order to maintain the popular reading of this verse, most translators leave out the article. But correctly parsed, the verse reads, "...as it is appointed for THOSE (tois) men to die once..." Just look at verse 28, where this definite article appears again: "...but to save THOSE (tois) who eagerly wait for him." "Those men" doesn't refer to all men universally, but to the High Priests (Aaron and his successors in office), which the author of Hebrews has been referring to, and contrasting with Christ. The context of Hebrews 9 is a discussion about the Levitical priesthood. What the chapter treats is those ritual offerings which represented Christ and his "better sacrifices" than those offered by the levitical priests (9:23).

Annually, on the Day of Atonement, the High Priest entered the Most Holy alone. When he entered, he did so only with sacrificial blood. That animal blood represented himself and the nation as a whole. When he thus entered, he symbolically died. Not until he emerged from the tabernacle to bless the people did they know whether his sacrificial offering met God's acceptance or whether he had been struck down. The benediction he pronounced, expressed in the words Moses instructed him to use, was God's judgment on the matter. Then the national anxiety over atonement dissipated, and they rejoiced and thankfully prepared for the Feast of Tabernacles immediately following the Day of Atonement.

Again, the context here clears up all uncertainty. This passage is a comparison/contrast between Jesus and the Old Covenant High Priests. The popular reading, however, does not reflect the true intent of the passage, but makes it meaninglessly disjointed. Read with the context in mind (and with the Greek word tois actually translated!), then the two little words "as" and "so" actually mean something: "And AS it is appointed for THOSE MEN [i.e., the High Priests] to die once [ceremonially, once a year], SO CHRIST was offered once to bear the sins of many..."

Why? It depends on how deeply impacting you assume sin to be. Since you're not concluding that on the basis of what Scripture said, then of course you'd have these questions about why the infliction of pain in eternity, why doesn't it solve something.

I'm not asking myself these questions; I'm asking you these questions to see what you think. Nowhere does Scripture state that God will inflict pain on anyone after they die - especially not endlessly - so I'm naturally curious as to why you think it's so necessary.

The view of pain you're assuming is that it should have a healing purpose, a goal in time.

While I haven't yet argued this point, it is true that I believe that all pain has a purpose that will prove to be for our benefit at a future time. However, it is also true there is much pain experienced in life that does not have an obviously "healing purpose." In many cases, pain simply ends in death - and death, in itself, doesn't "heal" anything.

But pain doesn't always have a healing purpose. Some pain is beyond redemption.

This is a baseless assertion. Perhaps you have something with which to substantiate it...

You can at least see that in the present creation. Many people die in great pain. What purpose did that pain serve?

No, I don't see in the present creation that "some pain is beyond redemption." So, you have yet to substantiate your assertion. Now, perhaps if I was an atheist, I would be forced to come to your conclusion, but I'm not. I believe in a God who is all-wise and all-powerful, and who can therefore bring good out of any evil - both in this life and after this life is over.

So the fact is, pain has a purpose beyond stopping the pain.

I'm not even sure what this statement means.

God is not obsessed with making us comfortable.

I agree; but you seem to be obsessed with arguing with a strawman.

Why'd God tell people they'd die for their sin -- if really, they're not going to die?

What do you mean? If God told people they'd die for their sin (and he has), then I believe they died for their sin. But since when does "dying" mean "living in endless pain?"

Why say people will be raised to judgment in the future?

Because people were raised to judgment in the future. But that doesn't mean they were raised from physical death to judgment, or that it's still in our future.

Nah. Your view is not what Scripture is stating.

This is your unsupported opinion, and I'm afraid it's not worth much to me.

It's too easy to point out the inconsistencies as we go along.

I thought the same exact thing about what you've been saying!

Why have a spiritual resurrection to judgment in John 5?

Here is what I said in an earlier post:

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

and

The “judgment” of which Christ speaks was a judgment that took place before the generation of which he was a part passed away. For almost 40 years after Christ’s ascension, life simply went on as usual for the Jews of that first century generation. Some continued to respond to the Gospel of the kingdom with faith (and consequently were being raised to new life), while some remained in unbelief, and remained in a state of “death.” Others fell away from the truth and returned to their former ways. But when the prophetic signs began to appear, indicating that Christ’s coming in judgment was near, believers (whom Paul said were “not in darkness, for that day to surprise you like a thief,” and whom he exhorted not to “sleep, as others do,” but to “keep awake and be sober” – 1 Thess 5:4, 6) were thus roused to activity and were able to escape the coming judgment by fleeing from the area, just as Christ had commanded them to do (see the Olivet discourses). But for those who had remained in unbelief (or had fallen back into unbelief), that day surprised them like a thief in the night. Again, Paul says, “While people are saying, ‘There is peace and security,’ then sudden destruction will come upon them as labor pains come upon a pregnant woman, and they will not escape” (v. 3). Such were indeed “resurrected” from their former state, and way of life. However, their resurrection was not to life (or blessing), but to judgment. Those believers who remained “sober” and “endured to the end” were also “resurrected” – not to the judgment of their nation, but to “life” (the aionion life of the Messianic age, when it replaced the Mosaic age of the law in 70 AD).

The spiritual resurrections in verses 24-25 climaxed in a dramatic change in peoples' circumstances, which depended on how people responded to the Gospel (and whether or not they remained "awake" and "sober"). Thus, the people of Israel were "raised" to two very different states: for those who remained spiritually alive and endured to the end, their resurrection was to a state of blessing (the "resurrection of life") and for those who, having been raised spiritually but then fell away, their resurrection was to a state of shame and condemnation (the "resurrection of judgment').

Why judge anyone who's spiritually resurrected? Don't they "not enter into judgment"? That's no spiritual resurrection to judgment. And yet you're saying that's what 5:29 is -- when Jesus is saying it's "the resurrection of judgment"?

See above.

 

[thelasttrumpet]

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

No, it would only mean that there is no need for the atonement as you understand it. I don't believe Christ died to save us from endless, post-mortem punishment, because scripture never speaks of this as being something to which anyone has ever been exposed, or was ever in danger of experiencing.

 

[thelasttrumpet]

-- plus, aren't there a number of statements in Scripture pointing out evil people who died in comfort in their own beds?

4For they have no pangs until death;​

their bodies are fat and sleek.​

5They are not in trouble as others are;​

they are not stricken like the rest of mankind.​

6Therefore pride is their necklace;​

violence covers them as a garment.​

7Their eyes swell out through fatness;​

their hearts overflow with follies.​

8They scoff and speak with malice;​

loftily they threaten oppression.​

9They set their mouths against the heavens,​

and their tongue struts through the earth.​

10Therefore his people turn back to them,​

and find no fault in them.​

11And they say, "How can God know?​

Is there knowledge in the Most High?"​

12Behold, these are the wicked;​

always at ease, they increase in riches. Psalm 73​

So evil people can't be said to have been punished by God if they go through life physically healthy and prosperous, and die wealthy?

 

[thelasttrumpet]

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

Ok, I understand your argument -- however, I deny that the "spiritual resurrection" in vv. 24-25 was an irreversable state (unlike literal, physical resurrection). This "spiritual life in Christ" was enjoyed only as long as one was believing on him, and "abiding" in him. If one "fell away" at some later time, and thus did not "endure to the end," they exposed themselves to this judgment once again: "If anyone does not abide in me he is thrown away like a branch and withers; and the branches are gathered, thrown into the fire, and burned" (John 15:6).

Thus, while "many of those who [slept] in the dust" (Dan 12:2) responded to Christ's words in faith (and were consequently "raised"), only those who "did good" (abided in Christ to the end) came forth to "the resurrection of life" when "the hour" that was "coming" finally arrived. But those who "did evil" (did not abide in Christ) came forth to "the resurrection of judgment" at this time, and were "burned."

 

[heymikey80]

So evil people can't be said to have been punished by God if they go through life physically healthy and prosperous, and die wealthy?

Not simply that: comfortable, prideful, unchanged, unchallenged, having enjoyed life.

Is anyone resurrected to judgment? They are. Jn 5:28-29 Will they be punished? Yep, they will. Mt 25:31ff. You can try supremely to reduce that to some group of evil believers (??), but it doesn't fit the context of what what Jesus said. Jesus would be speaking so "offbeat" from his hearers as to be incomprehensible.

 

[thelasttrumpet]

Not simply that: comfortable, prideful, unchanged, unchallenged, having enjoyed life.

And how do you know that such spiritually dead people "enjoy life," Mikey? I think only God can make that call, since he's the one who created us, and thereby determined what will give us true joy and peace. People simply cannot live in sin and experience true happiness, and fulfillment. It just doesn't work that way. Hence, I deny that violent, proud and wicked people (such as are described by David in Psalm 73) are blessed by God with true happiness, or real enjoyment in life. They are not living as they were created by God to live, and thus cannot be said to "enjoy life." Such people don't know what real living is. I would rather be the poorest, most humble man in the world and know Christ, than be the richest and proudest king who is yet "dead in transgressions and sins." To go through life with every "creature comfort" you can think of, and yet be spiritually dead, is a cursed and unhappy existence. All such people have are merely physical comforts, and even this is taken away from them in the end.

Is anyone resurrected to judgment? They are. Jn 5:28-29 Will they be punished? Yep, they will. Mt 25:31ff. You can try supremely to reduce that to some group of evil believers (??), but it doesn't fit the context of what what Jesus said.

So do you think Christ was speaking about "some group of evil believers" in John 15:6? The fact is, they're no longer believers when they're once again exposed to judgment. Christ is talking about those who were raised to spiritual life, but subsequently fell away and no longer abided in him. It is these people who were "resurrected to judgment" when the "hour" came.

Jesus would be speaking so "offbeat" from his hearers as to be incomprehensible.

Ironically, most people to whom he spoke (especially unbelievers) did find him to be "incomprehensible."

Blessings,
Aaron

 

[heymikey80]

And how do you know that such spiritually dead people "enjoy life," Mikey?

Behold, these are the wicked; always at ease
​

 

[heymikey80]

So do you think Christ was speaking about "some group of evil believers" in John 15:6?

No, I don't.

Not everything is about soteriology. "Abiding in Him" isn't about having been saved. But not abiding in Him is definitely about not having been saved.

The fact is, they're no longer believers when they're once again exposed to judgment. Christ is talking about those who were raised to spiritual life, but subsequently fell away and no longer abided in him. It is these people who were "resurrected to judgment" when the "hour" came.

... nah.

Ironically, most people to whom he spoke (especially unbelievers) did find him to be "incomprehensible."

He'd be incomprehensible to those who thought they understood Him.

 

[thelasttrumpet]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet
And how do you know that such spiritually dead people "enjoy life," Mikey?

Behold, these are the wicked; always at ease​

1) It is clear that David is employing hyperbole here (or do you really think wicked people are literally "always at ease?").

2) You are taking this verse out of its context (see vv. 1-3, and vv. 16-28). When read in its entirety, this Psalm actually teaches the exact opposite of the argument you're trying to force it to make.

David begins this psalm by exclaiming, "Truly God is good to Israel, to those who are pure in heart. But as for me, my feet had almost stumbled, my steps had nearly slipped."

How did David "almost stumble" and "nearly slip?" He goes on to explain:

"For I was envious of the arrogant when I saw the prosperity of the wicked."

David then goes on in vv. 4-12 (which you quote) to describe how he viewed the wicked, and the reason for his envy. However, David later realizes that he was mistaken in his understanding. He says (v. 15), "If I had said, 'I will speak thus,' behold, I would have been untrue to the generation of Your children. But when I thought how to understand this, it seemed to me a wearisome task, until I went into the sanctuary of God; then I discerned their end. Truly you set them in slippery places; you make them fall to ruin. How they are destroyed in a moment, swept away utterly by terrors! Like a dream when one awakes, O Lord, when you rouse yourself, you despise them as phantoms."

David realizes that the wicked do not go through life without being punished for their sins, and that he was wrong for being envious of them:

"When my soul was embittered, when I was pricked in heart, I was brutish and ignorant; I was like a beast toward you..." (vv. 21-22)

David ends this psalm by declaring, "For behold, those who are far from you shall perish; you put an end to everyone who is unfaithful to you. But for me it is good to be near God; I have made the Lord GOD my refuge, that I may tell of all your works."

David is comforted in knowing that God is just, and that the wicked will not go unpunished. Their apparent "ease" throughout life is but an illusion; ultimately, all must reap what they sow. And those who make God their refuge are blessed by him.

3) God himself declares that "there is no peace (shalom) for the wicked" (Isaiah 48:22; 57:21). Any "ease" the wicked may enjoy in life is simply in external comforts and material prosperity. But this is not true joy and peace, and consequently it is not true enjoyment of life. The existence of those who are "far from God" in their hearts, and "dead in trespasses and sins," is a wretched one. The truth is that, appearances notwithstanding, "the wicked are like the tossing sea; for it cannot be quiet,and its waters toss up mire and dirt" (Isaiah 57:20).

Thus, this psalm turns out to be a marvelous example of how God judges righteously in the earth. Though life may sometimes seem unfair, and the wicked may seem to "get off the hook," God is just in his dealings with the children of men. Those who are righteous will be blessed, and those who are wicked will be punished.

 

[thelasttrumpet]

"Abiding in Him" isn't about having been saved. But not abiding in Him is definitely about not having been saved.

Your assertion is completely unsupported, Mikey. "Abiding in Christ" most certainly IS about being saved. And you have no evidence to the contrary.

...nah.

This kind of lame response is expected from someone who, so far, has been unable to offer any better argument.

 

[heymikey80]

Your assertion is completely unsupported, Mikey. "Abiding in Christ" most certainly IS about being saved. And you have no evidence to the contrary.

All I really have to do is read the passage.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.​

As I said, "But not abiding in Him is definitely about not having been saved." But abiding in Him -- that is focused specifically on bringing fruit. It's so obvious it feels silly to even bring it up.

Fruit-bearing is not required for salvation.

This kind of lame response is expected from someone who, so far, has been unable to offer any better argument.

The infirmity is in your response.

 

[thelasttrumpet]

All I really have to do is read the passage.

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned. If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye will, and it shall be done unto you. Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall ye be my disciples.​

As I said, "But not abiding in Him is definitely about not having been saved." But abiding in Him -- that is focused specifically on bringing fruit. It's so obvious it feels silly to even bring it up.

Fruit-bearing is not required for salvation.

Actually, I never said that fruit-bearing was required for salvation. Bearing fruit is evidence of salvation. It is believers who are saved (i.e., saved from that which we can be saved from in this life), and to abide in Christ is to believe on him (i.e., to receive his words in faith, and rely on him for salvation). Do you think unbelievers can "abide in Christ," Mikey? Do you think unbelievers can bear much fruit (or any fruit at all)?

 

[heymikey80]

Actually, I never said that fruit-bearing was required for salvation. Bearing fruit is evidence of salvation. It is believers who are saved (i.e., saved from that which we can be saved from in this life), and to abide in Christ is to believe on him (i.e., to receive his words in faith, and rely on him for salvation). Do you think unbelievers can "abide in Christ," Mikey? Do you think unbelievers can bear much fruit (or any fruit at all)?

Not only do I think it -- I've seen it.

I've seen unbelievers do amazing things among the people of God.

And then I've seen them walk away.

So sure they can abide -- remain -- in Christ, relationally. They can be Christ's friend, and not rely on Christ for their lives. They can think Christ to be good, to teach about what is true and good, and they can pray to Him, talk to Him, clean up their own lives, and personally evangelize others, even.

So ... next question.

In point of fact, Romans 11 and this passage both point out people who are "plugged in" to Christ who eventually leave.

 

[thelasttrumpet]

Not only do I think it -- I've seen it.

I've seen unbelievers do amazing things among the people of God.

So in John 15, "bearing fruit" simply means doing "amazing things," regardless of whether these "things" are pleasing to God or not? Paul told the Roman believers that they'd died to the law through the body of Christ, that they might belong to Christ and "bear fruit for God" (Rom 7:4). So in John 15, is Christ talking about "bearing fruit for God" or is he talking about "bearing fruit for death" (Rom 7:5)? Or is he simply talking about doing "amazing things," irrespective of whether or not it pleases God?

There is only one kind of fruit that is pleasing to God - that which is produced by those who are living according the Spirit (Rom 8:5). Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8).

So sure they can abide -- remain -- in Christ, relationally.

How can anyone be in relationship with Christ without knowing him? And if they truly know him, then (according to Christ) they possess aionion life (John 17:3). Moreover, in John 6:56, Christ says, "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." And just prior to this verse, he said that whoever feeds on his flesh and drinks his blood "has life aionion" (v. 54).

They can be Christ's friend, and not rely on Christ for their lives.

No unbeliever can be a friend of Christ. To say otherwise is to completely water-down what it means to be in relationship with God and his Son. You can't be "Christ's friend" and not rely on him for your life.

They can think Christ to be good, to teach about what is true and good, and they can pray to Him, talk to Him, clean up their own lives, and personally evangelize others, even.

Sorry, but none of these things makes them "Christ's friend." None of these things means they're "abiding in Christ," or "bearing fruit for God." Christ said that HE is the vine, not "the visible church."

So ... next question.

No so fast

In point of fact, Romans 11 and this passage both point out people who are "plugged in" to Christ who eventually leave.

Certainly, but to be "plugged in" to Christ, as you say (at least in the sense that Paul is talking about in Romans 11) is to be a believer (v. 20). This entire chapter proves my point, Mikey. According to Paul, if a believer becomes an unbeliever, they are "cut off" (Rom 11:20-22). But if they don't continue in their unbelief, God will graft them back in (v. 23).

So, enough with your nonsense about unbelievers "abiding in Christ" and "bearing fruit."

 

[heymikey80]

So in John 15, "bearing fruit" simply means doing "amazing things," regardless of whether these "things" are pleasing to God or not? Paul told the Roman believers that they'd died to the law through the body of Christ, that they might belong to Christ and "bear fruit for God" (Rom 7:4). So in John 15, is Christ talking about "bearing fruit for God" or is he talking about "bearing fruit for death" (Rom 7:5)? Or is he simply talking about doing "amazing things," irrespective of whether or not it pleases God?

It's nice to try to qualify an action with its spiritual value, but you've got to decide which it is that's being meant.

I certainly think the Spirit can use unbelievers and bear fruit directly from His Own work. I think the Spirit can concentrate that fruit among believers, too, yes. But I think the Spirit does what He wants, and believers had better be following along after Him to stay plugged in.

The trunk of the Vine moves in the Wind.

There is only one kind of fruit that is pleasing to God - that which is produced by those who are living according the Spirit (Rom 8:5). Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8).

Then there is no grieving the Spirit of God among believers. You're back to so close a connection between fruit and belief that both are required, no matter the circumstance.

How can anyone be in relationship with Christ without knowing him? And if they truly know him, then (according to Christ) they possess aionion life (John 17:3). Moreover, in John 6:56, Christ says, "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." And just prior to this verse, he said that whoever feeds on his flesh and drinks his blood "has life aionion" (v. 54).

Did you miss the actual point? The contrary isn't the case; and a branch doesn't always at every time bring fruit.

No unbeliever can be a friend of Christ. To say otherwise is to completely water-down what it means to be in relationship with God and his Son. You can't be "Christ's friend" and not rely on him for your life.

Poor Nicodemus.

Poor Mary, James, & Jude while Jesus was still walking the earth.

They can think Christ to be good, to teach about what is true and good, and they can pray to Him, talk to Him, clean up their own lives, and personally evangelize others, even.

Sorry, but none of these things makes them "Christ's friend." None of these things means they're "abiding in Christ," or "bearing fruit for God." Christ said that HE is the vine, not "the visible church."

Playing my song.

What fruit does Jesus Christ mean in John? What fruit does Paul ... oh wait, Paul doesn't even mention fruit! You're arguing over an issue that doesn't carry your point into Romans 11.

Certainly, but to be "plugged in" to Christ, as you say (at least in the sense that Paul is talking about in Romans 11) is to be a believer (v. 20). This entire chapter proves my point, Mikey. According to Paul, if a believer becomes an unbeliever, they are "cut off" (Rom 11:20-22). But if they don't continue in their unbelief, God will graft them back in (v. 23).

So, enough with your nonsense about unbelievers "abiding in Christ" and "bearing fruit."

Btw, Romans 11 on grafting doesn't talk about fruitbearing. Even making the connection here with John is weak exegesis.

Not everything is soteriology. And here in Romans 11 it's especially true. The idea that unbelief instantly makes a passage focused on soteriology is simply not the case.

 

[heymikey80]

Using charged words like "nonsense" and "lame" and the like doesn't enhance your argument. It only prompts me to explain how very strong and sensible another argument really is. The fact is that the viewpoint you're proposing has been examined and rejected by quite a number of strong, sensible Christians through the last 1900 years, and has been predominantly rejected by them. To consider their arguments weak, you'd have to do more than what you're doing.

 

[thelasttrumpet]

Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet
So in John 15, "bearing fruit" simply means doing "amazing things," regardless of whether these "things" are pleasing to God or not? Paul told the Roman believers that they'd died to the law through the body of Christ, that they might belong to Christ and "bear fruit for God" (Rom 7:4). So in John 15, is Christ talking about "bearing fruit for God" or is he talking about "bearing fruit for death" (Rom 7:5)? Or is he simply talking about doing "amazing things," irrespective of whether or not it pleases God?

It's nice to try to qualify an action with its spiritual value, but you've got to decide which it is that's being meant.

I certainly think the Spirit can use unbelievers and bear fruit directly from His Own work. I think the Spirit can concentrate that fruit among believers, too, yes. But I think the Spirit does what He wants, and believers had better be following along after Him to stay plugged in.

The trunk of the Vine moves in the Wind.

Though you didn’t really answer my question, it seems you do think Christ is talking about "bearing fruit for God" in John 15. Thus, it would seem that you think unbelievers can both “abide (or “remain&#8221 in Christ” and also “bear fruit” for God (even though Christ tells us only a "good tree" can bear "good fruit"). So do you think the Spirit can use unbelievers who aren’t remaining in Christ, and still “bear fruit directly from His Own work?” Why or why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet
There is only one kind of fruit that is pleasing to God - that which is produced by those who are living according the Spirit (Rom 8:5). Those who are in the flesh cannot please God (Rom 8:8).

Then there is no grieving the Spirit of God among believers. You're back to so close a connection between fruit and belief that both are required, no matter the circumstance.

That doesn’t follow, Mikey. My argument is simply that “those who are in the flesh cannot please God” (and that, consequently, those in the flesh cannot bear fruit that is pleasing to God). I never said that believers can’t become “carnal,” and, in this state, grieve the Spirit and fail to produce fruit. But I deny that unbelievers can ever bear "good fruit" ("fruit for God"), because unbelievers are always “in the flesh” (until they become believers). And I deny that unbelievers can ever be said to “abide (or “remain&#8221 in Christ,” because unbelievers (as such) were never “in Christ” to begin with. And if that's true, how could they then remain in him? And if you think unbelievers can be “in Christ” (so that they can then be said to “remain in him"), how do they initially get into this state of union with Christ? Simply by "hanging out" with believers?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet
How can anyone be in relationship with Christ without knowing him? And if they truly know him, then (according to Christ) they possess aionion life (John 17:3). Moreover, in John 6:56, Christ says, "Whoever feeds on my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him." And just prior to this verse, he said that whoever feeds on his flesh and drinks his blood "has life aionion" (v. 54).

Did you miss the actual point? The contrary isn't the case; and a branch doesn't always at every time bring fruit.

I didn’t miss the actual point, no. Please respond to what I said. Christ makes a clear connection between being united to him through a faith-relationship (feeding on his flesh and drinking his blood), remaining in him, and having aionion life. But your assertion that unbelievers can “remain in Christ” is completely unsupported.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet
No unbeliever can be a friend of Christ. To say otherwise is to completely water-down what it means to be in relationship with God and his Son. You can't be "Christ's friend" and not rely on him for your life.

Poor Nicodemus.

Poor Mary, James, & Jude while Jesus was still walking the earth.

In the very chapter under discussion, Christ himself says, “You are my friends if you do what I command you” (John 15:14). Do unbelievers (who are always “in the flesh&#8221 do what Christ commands them to do? Do unbelievers “remain in” Christ’s love (John 15:10)?

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet
Quote:
They can think Christ to be good, to teach about what is true and good, and they can pray to Him, talk to Him, clean up their own lives, and personally evangelize others, even.
Sorry, but none of these things makes them "Christ's friend." None of these things means they're "abiding in Christ," or "bearing fruit for God." Christ said that HE is the vine, not "the visible church."

Playing my song.

What fruit does Jesus Christ mean in John?

Good question; I’ll let you answer that one. What fruit does Christ mean? Is it “fruit for God,” or “fruit for death?” Is it "good fruit" or "bad fruit?" Or perhaps neither? Is Christ talking about a “spiritually neutral” fruit here?

What fruit does Paul ... oh wait, Paul doesn't even mention fruit! You're arguing over an issue that doesn't carry your point into Romans 11.

You’re the one who mentioned Romans 11 to support your argument, Mikey (“In point of fact, Romans 11 and this passage both point out people who are "plugged in" to Christ who eventually leave.&#8221. I simply showed how it didn’t support your argument in the least. It is believers who are said to be “plugged in” to Christ in Rom 11. And Paul warns believers not to become unbelieving, because that would result in their being “cut off.” And how does someone become a believer? Well, God’s Spirit works in their heart to bring them to faith in the Gospel/trust in Christ. And at this point we might ask, Can anyone become a believer without also being “born again?” Maybe you think so, but I see no evidence for this. Regardless of whether one is a “Calvinist” or an “Arminian” as far as the chronology involved in the new birth and faith, there is no question that there a direct and causal relationship involved. Thus, we have Paul speaking of the possibility of those believing on Christ (people who were “born again&#8221 falling back into unbelief, and subsequently being “cut off” from the “true Israel” olive tree.

We don’t even have to bring in the issue of “fruit bearing” in order for this chapter to support my view that believers can indeed become unbelievers, and thereby expose themselves to judgment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by thelasttrumpet
Certainly, but to be "plugged in" to Christ, as you say (at least in the sense that Paul is talking about in Romans 11) is to be a believer (v. 20). This entire chapter proves my point, Mikey. According to Paul, if a believer becomes an unbeliever, they are "cut off" (Rom 11:20-22). But if they don't continue in their unbelief, God will graft them back in (v. 23).

So, enough with your nonsense about unbelievers "abiding in Christ" and "bearing fruit."

Btw, Romans 11 on grafting doesn't talk about fruitbearing. Even making the connection here with John is weak exegesis.

To my knowledge, I never tried to make a connection between Romans 11 and fruit-bearing in John 15. You’re the one who made the connection by bringing this chapter into the discussion. So I'm afraid there's no "weak exegesis" going on, on my part. I merely responded by explaining how, instead of being support for your view, Romans 11 actually supports my understanding that believers can become unbelievers, and thereby expose themselves to judgment (which is what we were originally discussing).

Not everything is soteriology. And here in Romans 11 it's especially true. The idea that unbelief instantly makes a passage focused on soteriology is simply not the case.

True, not everything is about soteriology. But I think both John 15 and Romans 11 are, based on both the surrounding and immediate contexts (see especially Rom 9-11). But of course, my understanding of what Scripture teaches that believers are saved from, and the nature of the judgment unbelievers were then exposed to, is very different from your own view.


Blessings,
Aaron

 

[heymikey80]

Though you didn’t really answer my question, it seems you do think Christ is talking about "bearing fruit for God" in John 15. Thus, it would seem that you think unbelievers can both “abide (or “remain”) in Christ” and also “bear fruit” for God (even though Christ tells us only a "good tree" can bear "good fruit"). So do you think the Spirit can use unbelievers who aren’t remaining in Christ, and still “bear fruit directly from His Own work?” Why or why not?

I don't think the verse is distinguishing people who are saved from lost. Therefore it makes no comment about that. Trying to imply one or another conclusion on the basis of a verse that doesn't talk about it, well, it'll never reach that conclusion because it doesn't talk about it.

And trying to get out of it a view 180deg opposed to your view doesn't help, either. Just because a verse doesn't talk about your position, it means the verse is silent. It doesn't mean the verse is saying the exact opposite. It simply means the rules aren't based on what it's talking about.

 

[mini21]

Hi everyone,

Since this forum has undergone some changes since I was last here, I thought I'd try again. But this time, instead of debating universal salvation, would any of you be willing to discuss the other side of the coin? I submit that the Bible does not teach that anyone will be punished after death, but that all punishment is confined to this life only.

Aaron

What about the story of Lazarus and the rich man?

19"There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21and longing to eat what fell from the rich man's table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.

22"The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham's side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23In hell,[c] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
25"But Abraham replied, 'Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.'
27"He answered, 'Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house, 28for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.'
29"Abraham replied, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.'
30" 'No, father Abraham,' he said, 'but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.' 31"He said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.' "

 

[ADNox2]

I flat out denied God. Yes, I did follow him whole heatedly before. I really was a follower of Christ then. Yes, I let my environment take control which eventually led me to slowly slip away from God. Yes, later I missed being with God and returned, when I realized how empty I had become with out him. I believe I was separated from God. I can't think of any reason why anyone could consider me a Christian at that point. If so... then how? I really was a believer prior but completely lost control thereafter. I was an unrepentive sinner.