The sheep and goat judgment of Matthew 25: The Progressive Dispensationalist view

[Guojing]

Do you understand what all whose names are not written in the book of life being judged at the same time means? You have some whose names are not written in the book of life being cast into the lake of fire before the GWT judgment, do you not? You have Matthew 25:41 being fulfilled 1,000+ years before Revelation 20:15, right? Yet, scripture indicates that all of the wicked will be judged and condemned at the same time (John 5:28-29, Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, Matthew 25:31-46, Acts 17:31, Rev 20:15).

So to be clear, you do not accept that during the millennial reign, there will be new people being born on the Earth as mortals?

A Yes or no answer would be appreciated.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So to be clear, you do not accept that during the millennial reign, there will be new people being born on the Earth as mortals?

As you should already know, I don't accept that a future millennial reign will happen. So, it's not a relevant question for you to ask me.

I imagine most Premils believe that will be the case, but it's not relevant to my own beliefs.

You noticeably are not specifically addressing the point I've made about Revelation 20:15 in terms of which people are being included there (everyone whose name is not written in the book of life). And you did not address my point about scrpiture teaching one judgment day instead of multiple judgment days as you believe. Why is that?

 

[Guojing]

As you should already know, I don't accept that a future millennial reign will happen. So, it's not a relevant question for you to ask me.

I imagine most Premils believe that will be the case, but it's not relevant to my own beliefs.

You noticeably are not specifically addressing the point I've made about Revelation 20:15 in terms of which people are being included there (everyone whose name is not written in the book of life). And you did not address my point about scrpiture teaching one judgment day instead of multiple judgment days as you believe. Why is that?

So your answer is no, it cannot happen. Alright then.

But can you understand that, for someone who believes that can happen, that new mortal people being born in those 1000 years, they would have no problems reconciling the point you are asking me about Revelation 20:15?

That means, had you also believe that can happen, then the answer to your question to me will also be clear in your mind.

 

[Timtofly]

LOL. That's hilarious coming from you.

Where is your evidence to support this statement?


LOL. You think Death is a literal place that the dead go to? Where is it?


What is this statement based on? All you do is make statements like this while doing nothing to back them up. Do you expect to be taken seriously when that is the case?


This is unintelligible.


Unbelievers will be resurrected as well and they will be cast into the lake of fire. Have you never read these passages:

Daniel 12:1 “At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise. There will be a time of distress such as has not happened from the beginning of nations until then. But at that time your people—everyone whose name is found written in the book—will be delivered. 2 Multitudes who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt.

John 5:28 “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned.

This shows that unbelievers (those who have done what is evil" will be resurrected unto "shame and everlasting contempt" and will be condemned. Clearly, their fate will be the lake of fire because it wouldn't talk about people who are given eternal life being condemned.


Scripture, like I showed above teaches that unbelievers will be resurrected before being condemned, so your beliefs are not based on scripture. It's no wonder that you never even attempt to back up your opinions with scripture.

Where is your evidence to support those in Matthew 25 are physically dead?

It states they are gathered out of the nations, not out of sheol:

"And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:"

Are there nations in sheol?

Is sheol a literal place?

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

Two distinct locations emptied and themselves placed in the LOF.

Where is sheol? Where is death?

"And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth."

Has the 4th Seal been opened? Seems you will find out where death is located when the 4th Seal is opened.

Daniel is seeing through a glass darkly. After 2500 years certainly we can see things clearer, or not. Amil force their opinions onto the text. They cannot see clearly, obviously. What they see is clear to them, but compared to Scripture it is as clear as mud.

Lazarus experienced Daniel's resurrection, and was an only resurrection. That does not contradict Daniel. That clears Daniel up so we can see God's plan more clearly.

The OT redeemed were resurrected at the Cross, but not those in sheol. That does not contradict Daniel, but helps us see God's plan clearer than just Lazarus coming out of the grave.

Revelation 20:5 does not contradict Daniel. Yet John claims the rest of the dead still have to wait, like they have been waiting for the last 2,000 years, another 1,000 years. Daniel saw the final outcome through a glass darkly, that Paul said, he himself had to look through. You are forcing the OT to dictate how the NT should be interpreted. Exactly the opposite of your recommendation that the NT clarifies the OT.

Amil only follow their own guidelines when it suits their bias.

There is no Scripture that shows a resurrection is necessary. Daniel does not say they "need to be".

“At that time Michael, the great prince who protects your people, will arise."

Is Daniel saying Michael, an angel, will also be resurrected?

What is Daniel saying when he says all will arise out of the dust? Is he literally calling that a resurrection, or is that your interpretation? There is literally no dust at all when death and sheol are emptied out. Is dust the same material as mud? Is the statement "that is as clear as mud" literal or figurative. Is "rising out of the dust" literal or figurative?

Is being dead at the GWT the same as being dead in death or dead in sheol? Where does John declare they are ressurected, if they are still as dead standing at the GWT? Once again, is the NT clear or Daniel? Are you going to view through mud, or John?

If there is a resurrection for any soul standing at the GWT, why would they be cast into the LOF, the second death? Any one resurrected are blessed and cannot be cast into the LOF. So they are blessed and resurrected, and then immediately condemned again to the LOF? If I made that claim you would say nonsense. What is it called when you make that claim?

John does not see them rising from the dust, a "clear as mud" view. John sees them still as dead, having been dumped out of death and sheol, and then sees them cast into the LOF. John does not confirm a resurrection that would prevent any one from escaping the LOF.

"who sleep in the dust of the earth will awake: [/B]some to everlasting life, others to shame and everlasting contempt."

If they are still dead after the 1,000 years, could it be that Daniel has hope for some even at the GWT?

You claim this has to mean the righteous, but is it you who twist Scripture? At the point of the GWT according to John, only the unrighteous sleep in the dust. If they awake some may still awake to everlasting life, as long as they make the right decision at the GWT. That would be a decision to choose life and remain in the Lamb's book of life, or still reject God's gift of a Resurrection and Life.

Now explain how I contradict Scripture, or is it just your interpretation that is at odds with God's Word?

Scripture does not teach. Scripture is just words on a page. The Holy Spirit guides us into all truth. It is your Amil bias that is trying to teach a certain opinion about Scripture. Is that not what you mean? Sometimes you make it sound like we need exact words or Scripture is not telling us what we think it is. When clearly exact words don't always appear like you think you want them to. Then you complain I don't use exact words from Scripture, when I use Scripture as a whole, instead of exact words like Amil. Exact words would be that we should use the word "thousand" as always symbolic. Why? To only make a tight case for our private interpretation?

 

[Timtofly]

Speak for yourself when you talk about spiritual blindness. Show me where 1 Corinthians 15:28 says anything about the Father judging anyone at that point? You are simply denying what I showed you from scripture which is that the Father has entrusted all judgment to the Son (John 5:22). It doesn't say He did that temporarily. You have to make things up to keep your false beliefs afloat.

"And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all."

Is the Son, Jesus?

Is God here the Son, or the recipient of creation the Son is handing back?

Look at this verse and state who is sitting on the GWT and who is not:

"And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"

Is God sitting on the throne?

Is God the Lamb in this verse?

Is there an "and" between the two individuals?

Are they both the same Lord with an equal amount of wrath?

Does the Lamb hand back creation to God sitting on the throne? Does it happen at the 6th Seal? Do we not need more passages to get a clearer picture?

But you are saying at this point there is no distinction between the Son and God on the GWT, and creation has already been handed back at this point.

How can you prove that, other than totally rearranging Revelation and give John's writings your own twist and how you see fit it all plays out?

 

[Timtofly]

Do you understand what all whose names are not written in the book of life being judged at the same time means? You have some whose names are not written in the book of life being cast into the lake of fire before the GWT judgment, do you not? You have Matthew 25:41 being fulfilled 1,000+ years before Revelation 20:15, right? Yet, scripture indicates that all of the wicked will be judged and condemned at the same time (John 5:28-29, Matthew 13:36-43, Matthew 13:47-50, Matthew 25:31-46, Acts 17:31, Rev 20:15).

Yes, Matthew 25 happens a thousand years before the GWT.

Yes, Revelation 19 happens 1,000 years before the GWT.

"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

Is this not the same lake of fire? Is Satan cast in with them or bound at Armageddon?

Why is Satan cast in after being loosed? Revelation 20 does not declare, Jesus coming in the clouds and casting these two in the LOF. They are already there.

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

How can you say with a straight face they are all cast in at the exact same time?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So your answer is no, it cannot happen. Alright then.

You already knew that, didn't you?

But can you understand that, for someone who believes that can happen, that new mortal people being born in those 1000 years, they would have no problems reconciling the point you are asking me about Revelation 20:15?

Maybe, but that still wouldn't explain why that verse gives the impression that everyone whose name is not written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire at the same time rather than some being cast in multiple times.

That means, had you also believe that can happen, then the answer to your question to me will also be clear in your mind.

But, I don't, so that is pointless as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Yes, Matthew 25 happens a thousand years before the GWT.

Yes, Revelation 19 happens 1,000 years before the GWT.

"And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone."

Is this not the same lake of fire? Is Satan cast in with them or bound at Armageddon?

Why is Satan cast in after being loosed? Revelation 20 does not declare, Jesus coming in the clouds and casting these two in the LOF. They are already there.

"And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

How can you say with a straight face they are all cast in at the exact same time?

Because that aligns with the rest of scripture. You assume that what is described in Revelation 20 has to occur chronologically after what is described in Revelation 19, but that is only your assumption. You also assume that the entire book is meant to be understood chronologically and that is the wrong approach to interpreting the book.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Where is your evidence to support those in Matthew 25 are physically dead?

It states they are gathered out of the nations, not out of sheol:

"And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:"

Are there nations in sheol?

The word "nations" is a poor translation of the Greek word "ethnos" there. Is this a judgment of nations or of individuals? Clearly, it's a judgment of individuals since nations will not inherit eternal life in the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world, individual believers will. And nations will not be cast into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Individual unbelievers will.

A better translation of the word would have been "people", which is one definition of the Greek word "ethnos". This is similar to how that word is translated as "nations" in Revelation 20:8 in relation to those who oppose "the camp of the saints" and yet they number "as the sand of the sea". Clearly, it's talking about individuals rather than nations there since nations obviously don't number "as the sand of the sea".

 

[Guojing]

Maybe, but that still wouldn't explain why that verse gives the impression that everyone whose name is not written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire at the same time rather than some being cast in multiple times.

Why not?

If it is indeed possible that there are new mortal humans with free will who are born after the sheep and goat judgement, why can't they choose to reject Christ after Satan's release?

Are you saying they don't have free will to do so?

 

[Spiritual Jew]

Why not?

If it is indeed possible that there are new mortal humans with free will who are born after the sheep and goat judgement, why can't they choose to reject Christ after Satan's release?

I don't believe that is possible for reasons that I've already stated multiple times, so why should I waste my time thinking about whether or not this would be possible if I believed differently? I'm not going to do that.

Instead of specifically addressing what I believe, you have chosen to ask me hypothetical questions regarding what I would think if I believed otherwise. That is just a complete waste of time. Thanks for the discussion, anyway.

 

[Guojing]

I don't believe that is possible for reasons that I've already stated multiple times, so why should I waste my time thinking about whether or not this would be possible if I believed differently? I'm not going to do that.

Instead of specifically addressing what I believe, you have chosen to ask me hypothetical questions regarding what I would think if I believed otherwise. That is just a complete waste of time. Thanks for the discussion, anyway.

So because you consider it impossible for there to be mortal humans being born in the millennium, that impossibility forces you to conclude that the sheep and goat judgment must therefore be the same as the GWT judgement.

Alright then, thanks for explaining your reasoning.

Discussions are never a waste of time, if your goal is to understand why others believe the doctrine they hold, rather than trying to convince them to hold another doctrine.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

So because you consider it impossible for there to be mortal humans being born in the millennium, that impossibility forces you to conclude that the sheep and goat judgment must therefore be the same as the GWT judgement.

To be clear, I consider that to be impossible because I consider the idea of "the millennium" occurring in the future to be impossible. Also, I see Revelation 20:15 as saying all (without exception) whose names are not written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire at that time. So, with that understanding, any other reference to people being cast into the lake of fire, such as Matthew 25:41, logically would have to be at that same time in that case.

Alright then, thanks for explaining your reasoning.

You're welcome.

Discussions are never a waste of time, if your goal is to understand why others believe the doctrine they hold, rather than trying to convince them to hold another doctrine.

You're misunderstanding me. I believe I already understand why you believe what you do. So, to me, that makes it pointless and a waste of time to answer your hypothetical questions since they don't really serve any purpose from my perspective. If I felt that I still didn't understand why you believe what you do, then I could see the purpose in answering those questions, so don't get me wrong.

It seems to me that you think if only I could understand what you believe and why, then I would agree with you, but that's just not the case. Maybe you don't actually think that, but I'm just saying it seems that way.

 

[Guojing]

To be clear, I consider that to be impossible because I consider the idea of "the millennium" occurring in the future to be impossible. Also, I see Revelation 20:15 as saying all (without exception) whose names are not written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire at that time. So, with that understanding, any other reference to people being cast into the lake of fire, such as Matthew 25:41, logically would have to be at that same time in that case.

With the usage of the term also, I think you are trying to say your 2 doctrines are not connected.

1. I consider the idea of "the millennium" occurring in the future to be impossible
2. I see Revelation 20:15 as saying all (without exception) whose names are not written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire at that time

But they are. One cannot exist without the other.

It seems to me that you think if only I could understand what you believe and why, then I would agree with you, but that's just not the case. Maybe you don't actually think that, but I'm just saying it seems that way.

That is incorrect. Instead, I believe one can understand an opposing doctrine but still disagree with it.

So if you truly understood my doctrine about mortals being born in the millennium, you would also find it easy to understand why I believe the sheep and goat judgement and the GWT judgement are separate ones.

You will not be making a statement like "Maybe, but that still wouldn't explain why that verse gives the impression that everyone whose name is not written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire at the same time rather than some being cast in multiple times."

It is not that my doctrine wouldn't explain, but rather "I understand now why you would believe that the 2 judgements are separate but, since I start from different premises, I will disagree with your explanation".

In the theory of logic, this means I accept the validity of your explanation since your conclusion follow from your premises, but I consider the argument unsound since I believe your premises are false.

 

[Timtofly]

Because that aligns with the rest of scripture. You assume that what is described in Revelation 20 has to occur chronologically after what is described in Revelation 19, but that is only your assumption. You also assume that the entire book is meant to be understood chronologically and that is the wrong approach to interpreting the book.

I don't assume anything. That is how the chapters read, in chronological order.

You assume they are not and declare your own understanding past the point of simple reading comprehension.

If they are not in some order, John would have explained why not.

What other Scripture anywhere states that Satan is cast into the LOF at the same time as the FP and the beast?

 

[Timtofly]

The word "nations" is a poor translation of the Greek word "ethnos" there. Is this a judgment of nations or of individuals? Clearly, it's a judgment of individuals since nations will not inherit eternal life in the kingdom prepared from the foundation of the world, individual believers will. And nations will not be cast into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. Individual unbelievers will.

A better translation of the word would have been "people", which is one definition of the Greek word "ethnos". This is similar to how that word is translated as "nations" in Revelation 20:8 in relation to those who oppose "the camp of the saints" and yet they number "as the sand of the sea". Clearly, it's talking about individuals rather than nations there since nations obviously don't number "as the sand of the sea".

He is calling the sheep and goats out of the nations. Ethnos does not mean dead people either.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

With the usage of the term also, I think you are trying to say your 2 doctrines are not connected.

1. I consider the idea of "the millennium" occurring in the future to be impossible
2. I see Revelation 20:15 as saying all (without exception) whose names are not written in the book of life are cast into the lake of fire at that time

But they are. One cannot exist without the other.

Nope, that is not at all what I was saying. They are definitely connected. You read WAY too much into that one word. You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what others are saying sometimes.

That is incorrect. Instead, I believe one can understand an opposing doctrine but still disagree with it.

Of course. I did not say otherwise. This seems hopeless. If you can't even understand what I'm saying, then what is the point?

So if you truly understood my doctrine about mortals being born in the millennium, you would also find it easy to understand why I believe the sheep and goat judgement and the GWT judgement are separate ones.

Who said I didn't understand why? I know why you draw those conclusions, but I believe it's all based on false premises to begin with.

You will not be making a statement like "Maybe, but that still wouldn't explain why that verse gives the impression that everyone whose name is not written in the book of life is cast into the lake of fire at the same time rather than some being cast in multiple times."

It is not that my doctrine wouldn't explain, but rather "I understand now why you would believe that the 2 judgements are separate but, since I start from different premises, I will disagree with your explanation".

In the theory of logic, this means I accept the validity of your explanation since your conclusion follow from your premises, but I consider the argument unsound since I believe your premises are false.

Good grief. Trying to discuss things with you is painful. Thanks for the discussion, but I'm not interested in continuing it since you don't understand half of what I say and you overanalyze everything I say as well. I can't take that anymore.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I don't assume anything. That is how the chapters read, in chronological order.

You assume they are not and declare your own understanding past the point of simple reading comprehension.

LOL. So, somehow I'm assuming things with my interpretation but you're not assuming anything with yours. I see. LOL.

 

[Guojing]

Nope, that is not at all what I was saying. They are definitely connected. You read WAY too much into that one word. You seem to have a lot of trouble understanding what others are saying sometimes.


Of course. I did not say otherwise. This seems hopeless. If you can't even understand what I'm saying, then what is the point?


Who said I didn't understand why? I know why you draw those conclusions, but I believe it's all based on false premises to begin with.


Good grief. Trying to discuss things with you is painful. Thanks for the discussion, but I'm not interested in continuing it since you don't understand half of what I say and you overanalyze everything I say as well. I can't take that anymore.

I am always happy when readers take time to read what I am saying and share their own perspective of what I am saying. It shows they respect my perspective enough to do that.

But I guess you are different, alright then.

 

[Spiritual Jew]

I am always happy when readers take time to read what I am saying and share their own perspective of what I am saying. It shows they respect my perspective enough to do that.

But I guess you are different, alright then.

What are you talking about? I have done that. But, you clearly misunderstand what I'm saying a lot of the time, as evidenced by your responses. Such as you seeing the word "also" in one of my responses and drawing all kinds of conclusions just from that which did not reflect what I was saying at all. That gets tiresome after awhile. If you can't understand that, then I don't know what to tell you.