Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Revelation 20:4-6 NIV
I saw thrones on which were seated those who had been given authority to judge. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony about Jesus and because of the word of God. They had not worshiped the beast or its image and had not received its mark on their foreheads or their hands. They came to life and reigned with Christ a thousand years. [5] (The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended.) This is the first resurrection. [6] Blessed and holy are those who share in the first resurrection. The second death has no power over them, but they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with him for a thousand years.
This is talking about believers in Christ, not unbelievers.
Thanks.I've heard that's worth a read.
My favorite underrated no-nonsense universalist pastor Santo Calarco just published a new book, which is great imho. You can get the softcopy edition for a buck. He has active ministries in Indo and South Africa, so well worth supporting (you can donate at his website). Amazed by Grace: Unspeakable, Unstoppable, Universally Restoring Love by Santo Calarco
Some of his YT messages can be found here: Santo Calarco Restoration For All
Otherwise there's a mountain of resources at the Tentmaker site. Tentmaker – Jesus Christ, the savior of all men, especially those who believe. I Tim. 4:10
It's the beautiful true gospel. Look forward to hearing how you go!
I never said the wicked God haters should not be punished. The truth is, however, God sees all sinners as imperfect people and does not count sins. To Him, punishment is not dependent on the sin. So in heaven, nobody will be considered more dangerous than anyone else to HIm who brings us up there. We will think about and praise Jesus. We will not hope Adolf Hitler is burning in hell then like we do now.
I should have worded that better, I'm sorry. What I meant was that he was talking to people in the late first century and telling them to invite others and spread the word that Jesus is coming soon, and that he wasn't inviting people after the tribulation, to be apart of the kingdom. Also, yes I do believe that we that we should still spread the gospel.I think we're talking cross-purposes there. I was responding to your claim that the invitation was extended to 1st century folks, by making the point that 1000 years elapse in Rev 20:4. So I don't see how you can maintain that position.
If I wanted to have a discussion with RobertWR I would go over to his website."GOD’S PUNISHMENT IN THE OLD TESTAMENT.
Through out the Old Testament the worst punishment was always death, never torment. If, as the argument is that God causing the lost to be eternally suffering is the only form of punishment, and that annihilation would not be punishment, the Old Testament writers did not seem to know that death would not be punishment. A few of the many times death is said to be punishment in the Old Testament, Exodus 21:12; 21:14; 21:15; 21:16; 21:17; 21:23; 21:29; Leviticus 20:2; 20:9; 20:10; 20:11; 20:12; 20:13; 20:14; 20:15; 20:16; 20:27; Genesis 2:17; Ezekiel 18:4; 18:20. In none of these punishment torment or consciousness after death is not implies.
Wayne Jackson in the “Christian Courier” said, “Punishment implies consciousness. It would be absurd to describe those who no longer exist as being ‘punished.’”
(1) According to him, those who get “death” for killing a person would not be punished.
(2) According to him Paul was wrong when he said, “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23).
(3) According to him “The wages of sin” cannot be “death” for in “death” there is no consciousness, and it would be absurd to say, “The wages of sin is death.” The argument that death is not punishment is nothing but a desperate attempt to change death to life, to change, “The wages of sin is death” to “the wages of sin is an endless life of consciousness suffering, an endless life of God making them to suffer.”
Summary - Whatever the punishment is in Matthew 25:46, it is the same punishment as Romans 6:16; 6:23; 8:6; Revelation 21:8; James 5:22; 2 Peter 2:1; 2:6; 3:7; Philippians 1:28; 3:19; 2 Corinthians 7:10; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9; Matthew 3:12; 13:40; John 3:16, etc. The Bible does not teach one kind of punishment in one verse and then change it to a very different kind of punishment in another verse. It does not teach the punishment is everlasting life with torment in one verse and death in another verse. It comes down to the question of,
1. Is the wages of sin death, or is the wages of sin everlasting life being tormented by God?
2. Is the second death a death, or is the second death everlasting life?
3. Did God really mean "the wages of sin is eternal life with torment," and He mistakenly said, "The wages of sin is death?"
A passage that does not say what the punishment is cannot override the many passages that do say what it is. From Matthew 25:46 alone, no one can say anything about what the punishment will be or will not be. The only way to know what is the punishment of Matthew 25:46 is to go to other passages that do say how God is going to punish the lost. THAT A PASSAGE, WHICH DOES NOT SAY WHAT THE PUNISHMENT WILL BE AND SAYS NOTHING ABOUT HELL IS THE #1 PROOF TEXT FOR HELL SHOWS THE WEAKNESS OF THE PROOF. Can anyone deny that they are going beyond what the Bible says when they say Matthew 25:56 says what the punishment will be, and deny that they are adding eternal life in Hell to Matthew 25:56 when it is not in it?
Is the only difference only a difference in what the punishment will be? Robert A. Peterson, a strong believer in Hell, says, the Old Testament judgments, the Flood, the destruction of Sodom, and Gomorrah, the Egyptian plagues and the crossing of the Red Sea, the captivities of Israel was ALL the loss of human life (page 23-24 of “Hell On Trial). Then on page 26, he says the punishments described in them are consistently earthly and temporal, resulting in physical death. None of these passages speak of life after death or eternal destinies, but he says Annihilationist err, for their belief would entail cessation of existence at death, not the resurrection and punishment of the wicked, "Hell On Trial" P & R Publishing. The New Testament used them as a type of God's judgment after the resurrection; Peterson on page 26 says they resulted in physical death. If the result of the judgment is not death, but an everlasting life of torment, then the types are not true for the types of the Old Testament does not show eternal life with punishment; but they would be true if death is the punishment. The New Testament writers used the Old Testament types to show the destruction of (death), not the torment of the lost. He errs in that he does not give God the power to raise the dead for judgment and punishment if the punishment is to be death; he takes away God’s power to raise the dead if they are dead. God will raise and judge the dead, and just as His judgments in the Old Testament resulted "in death" (Peterson), so will His judgment at the resurrection be a second death. His statement that Annihilationist err because they believe the first death to be the end of those not in Christ, and that the lost will not be raised for judgment may possibly be true of some Annihilationist (none, not even one that I know of), but it is definitely not true of most; it is an outright lie to say Annihilationist do not believe the lost will be resurrected for judgment; most, if not all that have been labeled Annihilationist believe the Bible teaching that all the dead will be raised for the judgment at the second coming of Christ, then for those not in Christ there will be the second death, an eternal death from which there will never be a resurrection.Did Robert A. Peterson just make a make-believe man of hay or stubble so that he could pull down his stubble Annihilationist; his statement that those he calls Annihilationist do not believe the lost will not be resurrected for judgment just is not true.
The only difference is in what the punishment will be after the judgment. Believers in Hell believe the punishment, “The wages of sin is death” will not be death but will be "everlasting life being tormented by God." Those who believe in Hell often argue as if they think that those who oppose Hell do not believe in the resurrection, the judgment, or punishment. They know that if Annihilationist do believe in the resurrection, judgment and punishment, they have loss much of their argument, for if the dead are all raised for judgment then the only question is after the judgment what will the punishment be, and there is no question that the Bible says “the wages of sin is death.” In much of his book he does as many, (1) he assumes that those who do not believe in "Hell" do not believe the lost will be raised for judgment, (2) and he assumes that there is a Hell, (3) and assumes that Hell is its name; then he unjustly puts this name into the mouth of Christ.
A more basic question than what the punishment will be after the resurrection is, "What is the resurrection?" “Will the resurrection be a real resurrection of the dead?” If Peterson was right, that there is something in a person that NOW has immortality, and this something in a person is now alive, and that there is no death for whatever this “it” is, then there cannot be a resurrection for whatever this deathless soul is; Peterson’s belief makes them be the one that does not believe in the resurrection that he falsely says those they calls Annihilationist do believe in. What he falsely calls the resurrection would only be a bringing of those souls that are alive in Heaven, or souls that are alive in Hell back to earth for a second judgment; the Bible says there will be a real resurrection, a real raising the dead that are really dead and bringing them back to life? On page 68 Peterson says God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the lost, but to rescue them from Hell. This is a typical example of the way Hell is added to the Bible. The Bible is changed to read the way they want it to read and Hell is added where it is not. How could Peterson or anyone know the lost shall be rescued from Hell? Do they have a revelation that is not in the Bible? There is no revelation in the Bible that says deathless souls are rescued from Hell, but there is much revelation that says lost persons are saved from death. "Let him know that he who converts a sinner from the error of his way shall save a soul (psukee–life) from death" (James 5:20). Salvation is from death, the wages of sin (Romans 6:23), not salvation from an everlasting life of being tormented by God. "God gave unto us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. He that has the Son has the life; he that has not the Son of God has not the life" (1 John 5:11-12).
E. D. SLOUGH, evangelist, Church of Christ, “The word ‘punishment’ is not a puzzling word; it is one of the most familiar terms in the English language. Do you know its meaning? Just think a moment and try to define it. The dictionary tells us it is the infliction of penalty for an offense. Is it? If the teacher tells the pupil she will ‘punish’ him a question would spring up in his mind, what way? Even the child knows there are many ways to punish. Though our theologians, after losing sight of the definition of the word, at last give it but one idea, that of misery. Cunning enough, indeed, to separate it from its primary meaning in the New Testament. As if death inflicted for sin was not a punishment. If it is a recompense of the some nature, what is the nature, how severe? The term punishment as a retaliation for offence, never defines the nature of the infliction to be executes. It only announces the fact that a judicial penalty is due, without revealing the severity of it. Punishment, retaliation, recompense, penalty, are synonymous words, and may be used interchangeably. So if the Lord had said, ‘These shall go into everlasting recompense’ or penalty, or retaliation, we would still be forced to seek other scriptures to learn what kind of recompense is meant. We are told there can be no punishment without pain. I deny the assertion. I challenge the reader to search the Old Testament for the hundreds of instances where the infliction of death was the penalty for crimes. And that it was inflicted to satisfy the offence regardless of the pain accompanying it. Punishment lasts so long as its results last, and where death has been administered for the satisfaction of crime; the punishment continues till life is restored, and if never restored, it is an everlasting punishment. Lost of property, loss of liberty, loss of life, may all be meted out to the transgressors under the label of punishment. And death as the capital punishment, legalized on the statutes of all civilized nations of the world, is the highest punishment man can inflict–or so recognized,–being the deprivation of life, the first source of all pleasures and enjoyments, and recognized as being forfeited for certain crimes.” “The Indictment Of Eternal Torment–The Self–negation Of A Monstrous Doctrine,” page 196–197, F. L. Rowe, Publisher, 1914. Free on the web at, http://www.robertwr.com/EternalTorment.htm
Summary - There is no way that those who believe all are born immortal could really believe in the resurrection, or in the need for it. By teaching that all are born with an immortal something in them that can never die the resurrection is denied and made not possible. (1) A living soul that is now alive and will be alive when Christ comes (2) and the resurrection of those that are dead are not compatible; BOTH CANNOT BE TRUE. Satan has done his work well."
Excerpt from: http://www.robertwr.com/
="vinsight4u, post: 74242608, member: 10688"]all that do -wickedly= from Malachi 4:1
The fire is everlasting, but people do emerge from it (see the miraculous regeneration of the nations in Rev 21-22)• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
Should read '...to be corrected everlastingly' or 'to be fixed but proper'. Kolasin is the word. He's talking about pruning the sin away.• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
Clearly a metaphor for regret/ self-disgust/ remorse etc. Have you ever burned yourself? Listen to the involuntary bloodcurdling scream that issues forth.• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
I'm looking at you Elisha and the bears maul the cursed kids incident. Don't it again! Yes, the guilty shall in no wise go unpunished, but with the measure they used, a just ephah and an accurate bath, not infinitely excessive cruelty.• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
So if you preach hellfire, you'll reap what you sow.• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
Well of course Judas doesn't get a pat on the back and a 'Well done, faithful servant'. But it doesn't teach he earns eternal torture either.• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24
Proving that for Sodom there is in fact life after annihilation. And ask yourself why Capernaum's sin is worse than Sodom's.• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12
Heb 10:28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
30 For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
31 It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
Jesus undoubtedly knew what the Jews, believed about hell. If the Jews were wrong, why would Jesus teach “eternal punishment,” etc. to Jews who believed, "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity," which would only reinforce those beliefs.
Nothing but your unsupported opinion. I'm sure you believe all that stuff but you have not backed up anything with scripture. Anybody can make scripture say almost anything they want it to by quoting a verse here and a verse there out-of-context.The fire is everlasting, but people do emerge from it (see the miraculous regeneration of the nations in Rev 21-22)
Should read '...to be corrected everlastingly' or 'to be fixed but proper'. Kolasin is the word. He's talking about pruning the sin away.
Clearly a metaphor for regret/ self-disgust/ remorse etc. Have you ever burned yourself? Listen to the involuntary bloodcurdling scream that issues forth.
I'm looking at you Elisha and the bears maul the cursed kids incident. Don't it again! Yes, the guilty shall in no wise go unpunished, but with the measure they used, a just ephah and an accurate bath, not infinitely excessive cruelty.
So if you preach hellfire, you'll reap what you sow.
Well of course Judas doesn't get a pat on the back and a 'Well done, faithful servant'. But it doesn't teach he earns eternal torture either.
Proving that for Sodom there is in fact life after annihilation. And ask yourself why Capernaum's sin is worse than Sodom's.
Some people love taking scriptures out of context and terrorising others with them. This is said to Jewish converts who were apostasising and going back to temple sacrifices, after Christ had fulfilled as the once and for all perfect sacrifice for sins. He's saying in effect 'If you go back to the law now, what can you use to cover your sins, when the sacrificial system was insufficient protection against sin and death even then?'
So Paul goes on to exhort them in his great exposition of faith, don't grow weary, God's chastising you because He loves you, so act honourably before the God of peace. He's not threatening them with a whacking if they don't comply - what a notion!
Because our Lord is 'flipping' their own proud holier-than-thou hellfire terror-tactics back on them. He's not reinforcing them, he's exposing them. This is what he does to the Jews on so many occasions eg if you were blind, you'd have an excuse. (Mt 9:41) And how will you escape the wrath to come? (Mt 23:33)
I should have worded that better, I'm sorry. What I meant was that he was talking to people in the late first century and telling them to invite others and spread the word that Jesus is coming soon, and that he wasn't inviting people after the tribulation, to be apart of the kingdom. Also, yes I do believe that we that we should still spread the gospel.
Nothing but your unsupported opinion. I'm sure you believe all that stuff but you have not backed up anything with scripture. Anybody can make scripture say almost anything they want it to by quoting a verse here and a verse there out-of-context.
This is a common error that people who don't know anything about Greek spread around trying to make scripture support their assumptions/presuppositions.....Should read '...to be corrected everlastingly' or 'to be fixed but proper'. Kolasin is the word. He's talking about pruning the sin away....
Nonsense! You did not put anything back in context which proved me wrong. All you did was give your interpretation of a few of the scriptures I posted.My point exactly - you've ripped a few scriptures out and backed them up with nothing but opinion. I just put them back in context.
Nonsense! You did not put anything back in context which proved me wrong. All you did was give your interpretation of a few of the scriptures I posted.
Not interested in how it's used in secular contexts. There's a logical fallacy going on here, which is to assume the consequent - ie begging the question. Like the translation of hilasterion as propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2. It's used in a different sense to the pagan idea of appeasing an angry volcano-god. Plus timoreisis I believe is the word for retributive punishment.This is a common error that people who don't know anything about Greek spread around trying to make scripture support their assumptions/presuppositions.
I have actually studied Greek and here is the definition of kolasis from BDAG one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available. I don't see pruning anywhere in the definition
κόλασις, εως, ἡ (s. prec. three entries; ‘punishment, chastisement’ so Hippocr.+; Diod S 1, 77, 9; 4, 44, 3; Aelian, VH 7, 15; SIG2 680, 13; LXX; TestAbr, Test12Patr, ApcEsdr, ApcSed; AscIs 3:13; Philo, Leg. ad Gai. 7, Mos. 1, 96; Jos., Ant. 17, 164; SibOr 5, 388; Ar. [Milne 76, 43]; Just.)
① infliction of suffering or pain in chastisement, punishment so lit. κ. ὑπομένειν undergo punishment Ox 840, 6; δειναὶ κ. (4 Macc 8:9) MPol 2:4; ἡ ἐπίμονος κ. long-continued torture ibid. Of the martyrdom of Jesus (Orig., C. Cels. 1, 48, 95; 8, 43, 12) PtK 4 p. 15, 34. The smelling of the odor arising fr. sacrifices by polytheists ironically described as punishment, injury (s. κολάζω) Dg 2:9.
② transcendent retribution, punishment (ApcSed 4:1 κόλασις καὶ πῦρ ἐστιν ἡ παίδευσίς σου.—Diod S 3, 61, 5; 16, 61, 1; Epict. 3, 11, 1; Dio Chrys. 80 [30], 12; 2 Macc 4:38 al. in LXX; Philo, Spec. Leg. 1, 55; 2, 196; Jos., Ant. 1, 60 al.; Just.; Did., Gen., 115, 28; 158, 10) ApcPt 17:32; w. αἰκισμός 1 Cl 11:1. Of eternal punishment (w. θάνατος) Dg 9:2 (Diod S 8, 15, 1 κ. ἀθάνατος). Of hell: τόπος κολάσεως ApcPt 6:21 (Simplicius in Epict. p. 13, 1 εἰς ἐκεῖνον τὸν τόπον αἱ κολάσεως δεόμεναι ψυχαὶ καταπέμπονται); ἐν τῇ κ. ἐκείνῃ 10:25; ibid. ἐφορῶσαι τὴν κ. ἐκείνων (cp. ApcEsdr 5:10 p. 30, 2 Tdf. ἐν τῇ κ.). ἐκ τῆς κ. ApcPt Rainer (cp. ἐκ τὴν κ. ApcSed 8:12a; εἰς τὴν κ. 12b and TestAbr B 11 p. 116, 10 [Stone p. 80]). ἀπέρχεσθαι εἰς κ. αἰώνιον go away into eternal punishment Mt 25:46 (οἱ τῆς κ. ἄξιοι ἀπελεύσονται εἰς αὐτήν Iren. 2, 33, 5 [Harv. I 380, 8]; κ. αἰώνιον as TestAbr A 11 p. 90, 7f [Stone p. 28]; TestReub 5:5; TestGad 7:5; Just., A I, 8, 4; D. 117, 3; Celsus 8, 48; pl. Theoph. Ant. 1, 14 [p. 90, 13]). ῥύεσθαι ἐκ τῆς αἰωνίου κ. rescue fr. eternal punishment 2 Cl 6:7. τὴν αἰώνιον κ. ἐξαγοράζεσθαι buy one’s freedom fr. eternal pun. MPol 2:3 v.l. κακαὶ κ. τοῦ διαβόλου IRo 5:3. κ. τινος punishment for someth. (Ezk 14:3, 7; 18:30; Philo, Fuga 65 ἁμαρτημάτων κ.) ἔχειν κόλασίν τινα τῆς πονηρίας αὐτοῦ Hs 9, 18, 1. ἀναπαύστως ἕξουσιν τὴν κ. they will suffer unending punishment ApcPt Bodl. 9–12. ὁ φόβος κόλασιν ἔχει fear has to do with punishment 1J 4:18 (cp. Philo, In Flacc. 96 φόβος κολάσεως).—M-M. TW.
Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., & Bauer, W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 555). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
You did not give me common sense or logic all you gave me was your unsupported opinion.. See e.g. kolassis.With some I referred to other scriptures, others I just used plain commonsense applying the essential principles of Biblical justice (ie as ye reap). It's called logic, as in Logos, you might have heard of it? We don't just rip out a few one-liners and give them the most paganised spin we can muster. I'll leave that to the 'experts'.
Thank you for your unsupported opinion. I suppose it's that level of patent brilliance and air of authority that sets it apart.You did not give me common sense or logic all you gave me was your unsupported opinion.. See e.g. kolassis.
Nonsense you evidently do not know what a logical fallacy is. I assumed nothing I cited a Greek lexicon. In the absence of evidence what you "believe" is irrelevant. Your opinion of BDAG is also irrelevant. When the NT was written they did not invent a new language they used the same koine Greek that all those secular people did.Not interested in how it's used in secular contexts. There's a logical fallacy going on here, which is to assume the consequent - ie begging the question. Like the translation of hilasterion as propitiation in 1 Jn 2:2. It's used in a different sense to the pagan idea of appeasing an angry volcano-god. Plus timoreisis I believe is the word for retributive punishment.
Nonsense you evidently do not know what a logical fallacy is. I assumed nothing I cited a Greek lexicon. In the absence of evidence what you "believe" is irrelevant. Your opinion of BDAG is also irrelevant. When the NT was written they did not invent a new language they used the same koine Greek that all those secular people did.
The translators did not sit down and make up meanings of Greek words. They determined the meaning of words by how those who spoke the languages used the words. The word kolassis only occurs twice in the NT. The translators used not only contemporary secular writings but also the LXX. If you had bothered to actually read my post you would have known that.
Please show me the meaning "to prune" for Kolassis in any credible language resource. Not from your favorite heterodox website.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?