the question of people in hell

[apostoli]

This is a split from the thread "Cardinal Pell heretic (?)"
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...-%28-%29/page2
_________________

If believers and unbelievers alike would read their Bibles they would know that the question isn't at all confusing.

John 3:36: Whoever believes in the son has eternal life, but the one who obeys not the son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.

We make it confusing because we're uncomfortable with the God of the Bible.

Neither is the question of people in hell or will be in hell confusing.

Rev. 20:15: And if someone was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Scripture (Dan 12:2; Rev 20:4-6,14-15) tells us there are three classes of people. In Revelation we find those who were obedient to Christ are not subject to judgement and automatically receive life in a first resurrection. Then a thousand years later there is the second resurrection in which we are told about two classes, each of whom are "judged every man according to their works", thus those found in the book of life who are granted life and those not in the book of life who are thrown into the Lake of Fire. In Daniel we also encounter three classes, the doomed class in Daniel simply isn't resurrected.

I'm not exactly sure what kind of distinction you're trying to make.

I've simply related what scripture emphatically tells us = there are two distinct resurrections and three classes of people...in Revelation 20 there is one class, those that participate in the first resurrection, that is exempt from the final judgment, in fact, at vs4 we read that to these "judgment was given unto them". Then at verse 12 we learn that those in the second resurrection are judged "according to their works", and "whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (vs15). Though scripture doesn't explicity say so, it is obvious that those found in the book of life are granted life.

Do you mean that there is a group who will be saved according to their works?

Or "cast into the lake of fire" according to Revelation!

You'll have to elaborate further because this paragraph by itself isn't very sound because it implies that salvation by faith is unique to NT saints.

Who would you classify as an NT saint?

In my reading of Rev 20:4, those who participate in the first resurrection are them "that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands". A literal read would exclude anyone who had not experienced martyrdom via beheading (pelekizō), thus most of the apostles and martyrs would be excluded ;-{

But! Imu, following A.Paul, anybody who in some way had/has suffered because they remained loyal to Christ would be included in the first resurrection (cp. 1 Thess 4:16-17; Rom 8:17-18; Phil 1:28-29; 2 Tim 3:12). Imo, everyone else who had ever lived, participate in the second resurrection and get judged according to their works. The word "works" is a attempt to render the Greek "ergon" which throughout Revelation indicates an act, deed, thing done - something outwardly observable and tangible (James 2:14-26 comes to mind vs26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also").

Imu, the second resurrection, the resurrection of judgement, is a judgement of one's heart condition rather than outward action, a judgement of one's motivation (cp. Luke 18:10-14), and the same rule would apply to those that had knowledge of Christ or otherwise. Though in my opinion, those that have received the teaching (logos) of Jesus will be judged more harshly (cp John 12:47-48).

Everyone, including believers from every age will be judged according to their works.

2 Corinthians 5:10: For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

A.Paul uses judgement in a variety of ways, so we need to contemplate his words in their context. For instance: at 1 Cor 11:31-32 he says "if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world". A.Paul's context here is the "holy communion". At vs29 he instructs "he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body". Imu, judgement isn't a one off future event, it is an ongoing process...

Again consider Ezekiel 18 which has it that if a man who had lived unrighteously turns to righteousness then he gains life. Whereas a man who had lived righteously becomes unrighteousness then he gains death. Imu, there is nothing in Revelation that would indicate a court room type procedure where the scales are balanced and judgement to life or death is decreed. Imu, taking Rev 20:12 with 1 Cor 11:32 those found in the the book of life are chastened by the Lord, and I surmise that those not found in the the book of life are given the reason for their condemnation.

The only difference is that believers will be judged for their degree of reward (1 Cor. 3:13-15), whereas unbelievers will be judged for their degree of punishment (Rev.20:11-15, which you referenced).

I am unaware of any scripture that allocates degrees of reward or punishment. Possibly, using scripture you can correct me on this matter (?)

Though that said, there is a distinction between those who attain life in the first and second resurrection, but ultimately, both receive the ultimate reward = eternal life.

1 Cor 3:11-15 implies that everyone's foundational works (cp. James 2:14-26) will be tested as if by fire (vs13), "If anyone's work which he has built on [it] endures, he will receive a reward" (vs14) (cp. Mt 20:1-16 where each of the workman receive equal wages irrespective of effort). Note in vs14 "reward" renders the Greek λήψεται" (dues paid for work), imu, such indicates participation in the first resurrection. Verse 15 continues "If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire". Imu, this is a reference to the second resurrection.

The premillenialist view (which I hold) is that the pre-mil saints will be judged at the start of the thousand years (first resurrection of the saints), and the post-mil saints afterward, but they aren't considered saints by some different standard (as opposed to salvation by faith) nor are they judged (for reward) apart from works. The Great White Throne Judgement (Rev.20) is very significant because it directly precedes the consummation of all things, and all the living and the dead who remain yet unjudged will appear before this throne (pre-mil saints also, apparently to assist in judgment [1 Cor. 6:3]). Heaven and earth completely vanish away before God and his courtroom (v.11). Following this judgement a completely new heaven and earth are fashioned for Christ and all the redeemed to dwell for all eternity (Rev. 21).

I too await the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of Revelation. Imu, the first resurrection is exclusive to those deemed worthy to rule with Christ for the thousand years (cp. Rev 3:21; Rev 20:4) and to judge with him. We read at Hebrews 11:39 that the men of faith of the OT had not received the promise of the resurrection, but in the OT we do detect reference to the book of life (eg: Dan 12:1; Ps 69:28) so, imu, the second resurrection to life applies to all men of faith throughout all ages.

...In Daniel we also encounter three classes, the doomed class in Daniel simply isn't resurrected.

I'm not sure where you get the idea of the "doomed class" in Daniel (quote?) not receiving their resurrected bodies.

Daniel 12:2 "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt". Notice Daniel does not use the word "all", and limits the resurrection to a "many". Daniel only concerns himself with "Every one who is found written in the book [of life]" (Dan 12:1). Daniel refers to a singular resurrection event, whereas Revelation has two resurrection events. So speculatively, Daniel's vision isn't concerned with the fate of the wicked (who imu, in Jewish thought would not get resurrected and would include all peoples who were not Israelites).

Daniel and John's apocalypses are reconcilable if one recognises the "second death" as being returned to the state of "death". Otherwise, we have to assume that John received a more insightful vision that was global in its perspective.

Revelation 20:11-15 details for us how the dead are collected from every corner of the universe, ranging even into the sea and the abode of the departed. The fact that the dead are reaped from every realm and placed in the divine courtroom that erased and replaced the created universe testifies to the all encompassing nature of this event. No one is left out. Everyone is resurrected at some point or another, but some never needed to be because they never died

So 1 Thes 4:16-17 tells us "...the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them..."

(the beast and false prophet in Rev. 19:20

I've often encountered that the beast and false prophet are organisations rather than persons. From a premillenialist, modern viewpoint, such seems a realistic viewpoint.

possibly the Korah rebellion in Num. 16

Note Numbers 16:29 "If these men die naturally like all men, or if they are visited by the common fate of all men, [then] the LORD has not sent me." Though they were consumed by the pit "alive", vs33 tells us they and all their chattel "perished". The Hebrew word "abad" when it comes to divine retribution has the connotation of "put to death, destroy, exterminate", so it would be prudent to remove Korah et al from your list of possibilities.

and Enoch and Elijah [if they aren't the witnesses of Rev. 11])

Jesus demands that "No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven..." (Jn 3:13), so either Enoch & Elijah died, are now asleep in sheol/hades awaiting the resurrection, or they are still roaming the earth (?) We know for certain that Elijah remained on earth after being transported away by the wind storm, as nearly ten years later he wrote Jehoram a letter (2 Chron 21:12-15), the presumption is he eventually died like all men. As for Enoch, it is evident he must have died as Genesis 5:23 tells us "all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years" (ie: that was the full extent of his life). Also it is worth noting Heb 11:5,39-40, Enoch had not and did not receive the promise of eternal life "God having provided something better for us, that they [including Enoch] should not be made perfect apart from us".

Neither is the question of people in hell or will be in hell confusing.

Rev. 20:15: And if someone was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

Scripture (Dan 12:2; Rev 20:4-6,14-15) tells us there are three classes of people. In Revelation we find those who were obedient to Christ are not subject to judgement and automatically receive life in a first resurrection. Then a thousand years later there is the second resurrection in which we are told about two classes, each of whom are "judged every man according to their works", thus those found in the book of life who are granted life and those not in the book of life who are thrown into the Lake of Fire. In Daniel we also encounter three classes, the doomed class in Daniel simply isn't resurrected.

The question/s that arise in human thought is one of equity, and we find this concept in Western Law (particularly in the Westminster system), thus in sentencing, or for that matter culpability, the idea of adjustment for diminished responsibility (for instance in Oz a child under 10yo can't be held legally responsible for his actions, including premeditated murder). In the OT we can deduce that this is not God's way, for instance every man, woman, teenager, child & infant in Sodom & Gormorah suffered the same fate, same thing happened to those who lived in Noah's day. Imo, the confusion you speak of sets in when we begin to confuse God's concept of justice with the humanist concept of equity - from this we end up with contemplating moral justice versus social justice, and more confusion sets in.

Ezekiel 18 is well worth contemplating, to paraphrase, God says "you say, 'The way of the LORD is not just.'...Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?". God makes this statement in the context that a man who lived unrighteously but turns to righteousness, "None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live". Conversely, a man who lived righteously but turns to unrighteousness, none of his righteousness will be remembered and he will die.

It's sometimes more about not wanting to subject ourselves to scorn and ridicule because we agree with what the Bible teaches. You'll naturally adjust the meaning to make it more palatable if you don't like what it has to say. It really isn't that hard to understand.

I agree scripture isn't "that hard to understand", but there are implications that people just prefer to ignore...

I'm sorry, I'm still unclear about what those implications are and what you mean by them.

For example:

Consider Rev 20-22. From a literal reading it is obvious that eternal life does not consist of us going to heaven to reside with God, but rather God coming to reside with us and providing us access to the tree of life (Rev 22:2). Considering Gen 3:22, the implication is that eternal life is conditional to having access to the tree of life. If so, then the implication is that the second death indicates extinguishment of existence or in some way God preserves the existence of the wicked that excludes them from having eternal life (if the later then it is implied that there is a limited duration of the torment). Those with a revenge mentality will appeal to social justice, and point to Rev 20:10. The implications of such are numerous, as the centuries old debates testify.

Rev 21:4 tells us "the former things have passed away". If so, the implication is that the idea of eternal punishment has no validity. If not, then the implication is that death & hades remain in existence (though Rev 21:4 explicitly says "there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying")

Those that see no issue with the termination of existence of the wicked or any abomination (eg: death & hades), can appeal to scripture in general and God's moral justice, but need to explain how it is that at the very least the devil, the beast and the false prophet "will be tormented day and night forever and ever".

A further example:

You suggested "Neither is the question of people in hell or will be in hell confusing", and yet so many people argue over the topic. Could it be it is the Bible translation they appeal to that causes the confusion?

From the original Greek scriptures, it is apparent that until the second resurrection there is nothing and no one in gehenna / the lake of fire. From scripture, it is apparent that until the first & second resurrection, everyone, good or bad who has died resides in hades/sheol (though tradition has it the good and bad are in different compartments) - according to scripture even Jesus went to hades when he died! The implication: the KJV & like contain unreliable renderings of the original Greek & Hebrew, thus can't be relied upon for interpretation.

[theblueprint_Ni]

I've simply related what scripture emphatically tells us = there are two distinct resurrections and three classes of people...in Revelation 20 there is one class, those that participate in the first resurrection, that is exempt from the final judgment, in fact, at vs4 we read that to these "judgment was given unto them". Then at verse 12 we learn that those in the second resurrection are judged "according to their works", and "whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire" (vs15). Though scripture doesn't explicity say so, it is obvious that those found in the book of life are granted life.

Or "cast into the lake of fire" according to Revelation!

Who would you classify as an NT saint?

Saints of the NT era; post-resurrection believers.

In my reading of Rev 20:4, those who participate in the first resurrection are them "that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received [his] mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands". A literal read would exclude anyone who had not experienced martyrdom via beheading (pelekizō), thus most of the apostles and martyrs would be excluded ;-{

But! Imu, following A.Paul, anybody who in some way had/has suffered because they remained loyal to Christ would be included in the first resurrection (cp. 1 Thess 4:16-17; Rom 8:17-18; Phil 1:28-29; 2 Tim 3:12). Imo, everyone else who had ever lived, participate in the second resurrection and get judged according to their works. The word "works" is a attempt to render the Greek "ergon" which throughout Revelation indicates an act, deed, thing done - something outwardly observable and tangible (James 2:14-26 comes to mind vs26 "For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also").

Imu, the second resurrection, the resurrection of judgement, is a judgement of one's heart condition rather than outward action, a judgement of one's motivation (cp. Luke 18:10-14), and the same rule would apply to those that had knowledge of Christ or otherwise. Though in my opinion, those that have received the teaching (logos) of Jesus will be judged more harshly (cp John 12:47-48).

I think you're making a lot of unnecessary divisions. The different types of judgment you place on multiple resurrections doesn't fit very well with the basic message of the Bible. I respect your diligence, but this is a very complicated interpretation, and a little forced.

A.Paul uses judgement in a variety of ways, so we need to contemplate his words in their context. For instance: at 1 Cor 11:31-32 he says "if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world". A.Paul's context here is the "holy communion". At vs29 he instructs "he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body". Imu, judgement isn't a one off future event, it is an ongoing process...

That's chapter 11. I referenced chapter 5, which Paul leads into from the first letter talking about "wait[ing] for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1:8) and preaching nothing but "Jesus Christ and him crucified" (2:2), and how no one can "lay a foundation other than...Jesus Christ" (3:11), reporting that "the day will disclose [each one's work]" on that foundation, "not pronounc[ing] judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden...and will disclose the purposes of the heart" (4:5), and eventually addresses the sinning brother in chapter 5 because of the seriousness of sin before God, which Paul immediately references again in his second letter because it was such a big deal, and goes on through chapters 3 and 4 to encourage the Corinthians out the the despair they felt from harshness of his first letter, reassuring them of their place in the new covenant and in the power of the gospel. Then, speaking of the yearning we have for our heavenly home, exhorts us to "make it our aim to please him" (5:9). "for", or you might say 'because', "we must all appear before the judment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." (v.10) There isn't much dispute about what Paul meant. The plain reading strongly supports a future judgment.

The 1 Cor. 11 section you mention is just as you say. But you picked it out for that reason, not because what Paul addresses six chapters later somehow renders the chapter 5 passage as something foreign to its most obvious interpretation. Paul's intention in the chapter 11 passage is not quite the same as the chapter 5 passage.

Again consider Ezekiel 18 which has it that if a man who had lived unrighteously turns to righteousness then he gains life. Whereas a man who had lived righteously becomes unrighteousness then he gains death. Imu, there is nothing in Revelation that would indicate a court room type procedure where the scales are balanced and judgement to life or death is decreed. Imu, taking Rev 20:12 with 1 Cor 11:32 those found in the the book of life are chastened by the Lord, and I surmise that those not found in the the book of life are given the reason for their condemnation.

Ezekiel 18 is really stating what should already be obvious, but Israel's level of corruption was so bad that it exceeded that of the original inhabitants (2 Kings 21:11), so they didn't exactly have the best moral compass to make an accurate assessment about the justice of God.

Also, I didn't mention anything about scales. The scriptures constantly make reference to a future judgment, and a courtroom is clearly in view in Rev. 20. Those who are not written in the book a life are judged according to their works, thus inevitably condemned and sentenced, presumably according to the degree and amount to which they sinned in life. I thought I already made it clear in my second post that we are saved by faith alone. Those written in the book of life aren't there because they did good things for God. They were written in because they believed God by faith.

I am unaware of any scripture that allocates degrees of reward or punishment. Possibly, using scripture you can correct me on this matter (?)

That 1 Corinthians 3 passage pretty much speaks for itself. Throw in the parable of the talents, mina, etc., and it seems clear enough to me.

Though that said, there is a distinction between those who attain life in the first and second resurrection, but ultimately, both receive the ultimate reward = eternal life.

1 Cor 3:11-15 implies that everyone's foundational works (cp. James 2:14-26) will be tested as if by fire (vs13), "If anyone's work which he has built on [it] endures, he will receive a reward" (vs14) (cp. Mt 20:1-16 where each of the workman receive equal wages irrespective of effort). Note in vs14 "reward" renders the Greek λήψεται" (dues paid for work), imu, such indicates participation in the first resurrection. Verse 15 continues "If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire". Imu, this is a reference to the second resurrection.

I too await the coming of Christ and the fulfillment of Revelation. Imu, the first resurrection is exclusive to those deemed worthy to rule with Christ for the thousand years (cp. Rev 3:21; Rev 20:4) and to judge with him. We read at Hebrews 11:39 that the men of faith of the OT had not received the promise of the resurrection, but in the OT we do detect reference to the book of life (eg: Dan 12:1; Ps 69:28) so, imu, the second resurrection to life applies to all men of faith throughout all ages.

The "promises" were not knowledge propositions that OT saints were unaware of (11:17 specifically says that Abraham believed that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead, and OT believers clearly believed in the resurrection because that was one of the major divisions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees). The promises in view has more to do with actual fulfillment of promises, not promises previously unknown (i.e., chapter 4 and the promise of rest not fully realized).

Daniel 12:2 "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt". Notice Daniel does not use the word "all", and limits the resurrection to a "many". Daniel only concerns himself with "Every one who is found written in the book [of life]" (Dan 12:1). Daniel refers to a singular resurrection event, whereas Revelation has two resurrection events. So speculatively, Daniel's vision isn't concerned with the fate of the wicked (who imu, in Jewish thought would not get resurrected and would include all peoples who were not Israelites).

Daniel and John's apocalypses are reconcilable if one recognises the "second death" as being returned to the state of "death". Otherwise, we have to assume that John received a more insightful vision that was global in its perspective.

So 1 Thes 4:16-17 tells us "...the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive [and] remain shall be caught up together with them..."

I've often encountered that the beast and false prophet are organisations rather than persons. From a premillenialist, modern viewpoint, such seems a realistic viewpoint.

Note Numbers 16:29 "If these men die naturally like all men, or if they are visited by the common fate of all men, [then] the LORD has not sent me." Though they were consumed by the pit "alive", vs33 tells us they and all their chattel "perished". The Hebrew word "abad" when it comes to divine retribution has the connotation of "put to death, destroy, exterminate", so it would be prudent to remove Korah et al from your list of possibilities.

Jesus demands that "No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven..." (Jn 3:13), so either Enoch & Elijah died, are now asleep in sheol/hades awaiting the resurrection, or they are still roaming the earth (?) We know for certain that Elijah remained on earth after being transported away by the wind storm, as nearly ten years later he wrote Jehoram a letter (2 Chron 21:12-15), the presumption is he eventually died like all men. As for Enoch, it is evident he must have died as Genesis 5:23 tells us "all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years" (ie: that was the full extent of his life). Also it is worth noting Heb 11:5,39-40, Enoch had not and did not receive the promise of eternal life "God having provided something better for us, that they [including Enoch] should not be made perfect apart from us".

The Bible doesn't give us a timeline for when Elijah ascended. Also, we are specifically told that the prophets thought that Elijah may have been caught up and cast into some valley, and even after Elisha told them not to look, they went and searched and found nothing (2 Kings 2:16-18). The evidence is against Elijah coming back.

John 3:13 does not teach that no one has literally been to heaven. That's an overly literal interpretation that somewhat ignores the conversation that Jesus is having with Nicodemus. Jesus essentially tells Nicodemus that no one has gone to heaven and back to impart to them heavenly knowledge that might contradict the testimony that Christ was giving, except Christ, who came down from heaven to testify about the will and knowledge of God (namely the purpose of the incarnation). On a side note, your interpretation contradicts what actually happened with Enoch and Elijah, not to mention Paul (2 Cor. 12:3-4). I'm not understanding how you think that Enoch only lived 365 years when it explicitly says "Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him, an obvious break from the repetitive usage of the phrase, "and he died" for everyone else in the successive lineage (Gen 5:2-32). It's clear that "was not" meant "he didn't die"

For example:

Consider Rev 20-22. From a literal reading it is obvious that eternal life does not consist of us going to heaven to reside with God, but rather God coming to reside with us and providing us access to the tree of life (Rev 22:2). Considering Gen 3:22, the implication is that eternal life is conditional to having access to the tree of life. If so, then the implication is that the second death indicates extinguishment of existence or in some way God preserves the existence of the wicked that excludes them from having eternal life (if the later then it is implied that there is a limited duration of the torment). Those with a revenge mentality will appeal to social justice, and point to Rev 20:10. The implications of such are numerous, as the centuries old debates testify.

Rev 21:4 tells us "the former things have passed away". If so, the implication is that the idea of eternal punishment has no validity. If not, then the implication is that death & hades remain in existence (though Rev 21:4 explicitly says "there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying")

Those that see no issue with the termination of existence of the wicked or any abomination (eg: death & hades), can appeal to scripture in general and God's moral justice, but need to explain how it is that at the very least the devil, the beast and the false prophet "will be tormented day and night forever and ever".

I really appreciate the work you put into this, however the way you string passages together makes it look complicated, more complicated than it should be, and I can't vouch for the kind of relevance you give each passage in relation with one another.

A further example:

You suggested "Neither is the question of people in hell or will be in hell confusing", and yet so many people argue over the topic. Could it be it is the Bible translation they appeal to that causes the confusion?

I seriously doubt it.

From the original Greek scriptures, it is apparent that until the second resurrection there is nothing and no one in gehenna / the lake of fire. From scripture, it is apparent that until the first & second resurrection, everyone, good or bad who has died resides in hades/sheol (though tradition has it the good and bad are in different compartments) - according to scripture even Jesus went to hades when he died! The implication: the KJV & like contain unreliable renderings of the original Greek & Hebrew, thus can't be relied upon for interpretation.

Do you know Greek?

[theblueprint_Ni]

I agree with you about the lake of fire being currently void, btw. I do make the distinction between hell and the lake of fire, but I didn't make that obvious here because for all intents and purposes rejecting the idea of eternal suffering (from the previous thread) made that distinction irrelevant.

[theblueprint_Ni]

I somehow mixed one of my responses in with the quotes. Here's how it should have looked like:

........

Jesus demands that "No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven..." (Jn 3:13), so either Enoch & Elijah died, are now asleep in sheol/hades awaiting the resurrection, or they are still roaming the earth (?) We know for certain that Elijah remained on earth after being transported away by the wind storm, as nearly ten years later he wrote Jehoram a letter (2 Chron 21:12-15), the presumption is he eventually died like all men. As for Enoch, it is evident he must have died as Genesis 5:23 tells us "all the days of Enoch were three hundred and sixty-five years" (ie: that was the full extent of his life). Also it is worth noting Heb 11:5,39-40, Enoch had not and did not receive the promise of eternal life "God having provided something better for us, that they [including Enoch] should not be made perfect apart from us".

The Bible doesn't give us a timeline for when Elijah ascended. Also, we are specifically told that the prophets thought that Elijah may have been caught up and cast into some valley, and even after Elisha told them not to look, they went and searched and found nothing (2 Kings 2:16-18). The evidence is against Elijah coming back.

John 3:13 does not teach that no one has literally been to heaven. That's an overly literal interpretation that somewhat ignores the conversation that Jesus is having with Nicodemus. Jesus essentially tells Nicodemus that no one has gone to heaven and back to impart to them heavenly knowledge that might contradict the testimony that Christ was giving, except Christ, who came down from heaven to testify about the will and knowledge of God (namely the purpose of the incarnation). On a side note, your interpretation contradicts what actually happened with Enoch and Elijah, not to mention Paul (2 Cor. 12:3-4). I'm not understanding how you think that Enoch only lived 365 years when it explicitly says "Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him, an obvious break from the repetitive usage of the phrase, "and he died" for everyone else in the successive lineage (Gen 5:2-32). It's clear that "was not" meant "he didn't die"

.......

[apostoli]

You'll have to elaborate further because this paragraph by itself isn't very sound because it implies that salvation by faith is unique to NT saints.

Who would you classify as an NT saint?....

Saints of the NT era; post-resurrection believers.

We are probably in agreement in this respect, all beleivers are "set aside" by God. However, in A.Paul's letters we do encounter a class of "saints" whose function is to minister to the "saints" = all other believers, and the later in turn provide aid to the "saints". So, it seems there is a functional heirarchy of "saints", each gaining gifts according to their ability (and I would extend "ability" in the context of the extent of belief).

I came across an interesting article that discusses the realtionship of the Greek "hagios" and the Hebrew "kodesh" both of which are often translated "saints". It opens "how is it even conceivable that Paul would call the motley crew of Corinth saints? These people are a mess. Incest, perversion, quarrels, illness, heresies, rancor – you name it, they exhibit it. These people are about as far from being "holy ones" [saints] as we could imagine". The article makes a point, imo, well worth contemplating "Does “sanctified” mean that they are morally upright and pure now? No. Does it mean that this will be the natural by-product of God’s purposes? Yes. It is important to realize that kodesh is atypical Hebrew. It is not about actions. It is about a state of being. In other words, Paul’s statement is proleptic. He writes to the assembly of Corinth from the perspective of what they will eventually become behaviorally, not because they will work to achieve that end but because God will faithfully produce that end. From this perspective, they are saints in progress. Their task is consecration. God will do all the rest. But from God’s perspective, they are already His possession and therefore, they are right now kodesh". The article concludes "It seems rather pointless to proclaim that Paul excuses our mess simply because he sees us as we will become. That ignores everything we know about obedience. But God always starts what He finishes and in this case, He has started the finished work of you and me – and the motley crew in Corinth."

It occurs to me that most of us will undergo some kind of purgation to become "saints" in the full intention of God. I presume that experience happens in this life time but...

I think you're making a lot of unnecessary divisions. The different types of judgment you place on multiple resurrections doesn't fit very well with the basic message of the Bible. I respect your diligence, but this is a very complicated interpretation, and a little forced.

I simply presented a literal reading of Revelation 20:4 which requires that those who participate in the 1st Resurrection were those who were "beheaded". The interpretation I provided was simply dreived from A.Paul wherein anybody who in some way had/has suffered because they remained loyal to Christ would be included in the first resurrection (cp. 1 Thess 4:16-17; Rom 8:17-18; Phil 1:28-29; 2 Tim 3:12). Which, imo, is Godly justice given who else would be qualified to act to rule and judge with Christ, other than those who are replics of him. Certainly not those "believers" who are nominal and complacent in their comfortable democracies (?). These, imo, would have their "works" weighed...

I referenced chapter 5, which Paul leads into from the first letter talking about "wait[ing] for the revealing of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ" (1:8) and preaching nothing but "Jesus Christ and him crucified" (2:2), and how no one can "lay a foundation other than...Jesus Christ" (3:11), reporting that "the day will disclose [each one's work]" on that foundation, "not pronounc[ing] judgment before the time, before the Lord comes, who will bring to light the things now hidden...and will disclose the purposes of the heart" (4:5), and eventually addresses the sinning brother in chapter 5 because of the seriousness of sin before God, which Paul immediately references again in his second letter because it was such a big deal, and goes on through chapters 3 and 4 to encourage the Corinthians out the the despair they felt from harshness of his first letter, reassuring them of their place in the new covenant and in the power of the gospel. Then, speaking of the yearning we have for our heavenly home, exhorts us to "make it our aim to please him" (5:9). "for", or you might say 'because', "we must all appear before the judment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil." (v.10) There isn't much dispute about what Paul meant. The plain reading strongly supports a future judgment.

I agree, though from A.John's Revelation the judgement of works occurs in the second resurrection. It is apparent that those who participate in the first resurrection need no evidential justification. Consider 1 Cor 3:12-15, where we encounter at least two classes, those whose foundation is preserved and those whose foundation is burnt up, still both end up being saved.

The 1 Cor. 11 section you mention is just as you say. But you picked it out for that reason, not because what Paul addresses six chapters later somehow renders the chapter 5 passage as something foreign to its most obvious interpretation. Paul's intention in the chapter 11 passage is not quite the same as the chapter 5 passage.

I agree. As I said "A.Paul uses judgement in a variety of ways, so we need to contemplate his words in their context", thus we need to contemplate chapter 5 in A.Paul's over context (and not just his grammatical context). Given Jesus tells us he did not come to judge and he does not judge by external appearances there is a good indication that we in fact bring judgement on ourselves (cp. John 12:47-48; 7:24). 1 Cor 11:29-32 very much has to same contexual parameters as Chapter 5 "if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world". It also gives us a model of the type of thing we will be judged for "he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body".

Ezekiel 18 is really stating what should already be obvious, but Israel's level of corruption was so bad that it exceeded that of the original inhabitants (2 Kings 21:11), so they didn't exactly have the best moral compass to make an accurate assessment about the justice of God.

Have a close read of Ezekiel 18, God does not attribute the sins of the father upon the son, thus Ezekiel 18 has been used to refute A.Paul's idea of us inheriting Adam's sin. Hence, the teaching I received in my RCC education = "original sin" is inherited as a social princple (environment causes inclination towards sin) not a moral principle (nature - man was created in God's image and so is not inherently sinful).

Also, I didn't mention anything about scales.

You did view the resurrection/s as a court room scene, thus the metaphor of scales of justice. The common viewpoint is that God weighs up all our good deeds and bad deeds to make his decision. Ezekiel demonstrates such a popular and common idea is unscriptural.

The scriptures constantly make reference to a future judgment, and a courtroom is clearly in view in Rev. 20.

Howso! No mention of a court room in Rev 20. Just books being opened - the image imo is more like an receivers (auditors) office where the cold decision of whether someone is insolvent or not is made with dispassion.

Those who are not written in the book a life are judged according to their works

According to Rev 20:12&13, at the 2nd resurrection, whether or not one is written in the book of life, one is judged according to their works.

thus [those not in the book of life are] inevitably condemned and sentenced, presumably according to the degree and amount to which they sinned in life.

All Rev 20:15 tells us is that they all suffer the same fate = are thrown into the lake of fire = experience the second death. There is no indication of degrees of punishment. As I said before, I'm not aware of scripture teaching there are degrees of punishment. If you can correct me on this matter from scripture I'd appreciate it.

In regards to reward you did point to 1 Cor 3, and to an extent I might agree with you but for the fact that both classes ultimately receive eternal life. One class however is given a special responsibilty for a limited period of time, whether this was a reward or not I'll leave that for you to contemplate.

I thought I already made it clear in my second post that we are saved by faith alone. Those written in the book of life aren't there because they did good things for God. They were written in because they believed God by faith.

As James emphatically points out "faith without works is dead", thus it is works that prove one's faith. eg: having personal faith that one is saved, doesn't make one saved, those who are saved act accordingly to the best of their ability. Imo, a "works" include such simple things as appealing to the Holy Spirit to intercede for us, and aid us in overcoming some defect we see in ourselves. Imo, works that are counted are not visible to men, but they more than likely will have a visible manifestation!

Imu, the first resurrection is exclusive to those deemed worthy to rule with Christ for the thousand years (cp. Rev 3:21; Rev 20:4) and to judge with him. We read at Hebrews 11:39 that the men of faith of the OT had not received the promise of the resurrection, but in the OT we do detect reference to the book of life (eg: Dan 12:1; Ps 69:28) so, imu, the second resurrection to life applies to all men of faith throughout all ages.

The "promises" were not knowledge propositions that OT saints were unaware of (11:17 specifically says that Abraham believed that God was able to raise Isaac from the dead, and OT believers clearly believed in the resurrection because that was one of the major divisions between the Pharisees and the Sadducees). The promises in view has more to do with actual fulfillment of promises, not promises previously unknown (i.e., chapter 4 and the promise of rest not fully realized).

You have missed the point I was making = the OT faithful have no participation in the 1st resurrection. They are subject to the second resurrection, the resurrection of judgement!

From the original Greek scriptures, it is apparent that until the second resurrection there is nothing and no one in gehenna / the lake of fire. From scripture, it is apparent that until the first & second resurrection, everyone, good or bad who has died resides in hades/sheol (though tradition has it the good and bad are in different compartments) - according to scripture even Jesus went to hades when he died! The implication: the KJV & like contain unreliable renderings of the original Greek & Hebrew, thus can't be relied upon for interpretation.

Do you know Greek?

To an extent but not to the same extent of say a Thayer, Wallace, Harner, Mantey etc. Personally, I beieve in this day and age there is no excuse for people not delving into the original languages - there are plenty of free online grammars, lexicons, interlinears and commentaries available. Not to mention numerous modern English translations that correct the mistranslation of words found in older translations.

[theblueprint_Ni]

I simply presented a literal reading of Revelation 20:4 which requires that those who participate in the 1st Resurrection were those who were "beheaded". The interpretation I provided was simply dreived from A.Paul wherein anybody who in some way had/has suffered because they remained loyal to Christ would be included in the first resurrection (cp. 1 Thess 4:16-17; Rom 8:17-18; Phil 1:28-29; 2 Tim 3:12). Which, imo, is Godly justice given who else would be qualified to act to rule and judge with Christ, other than those who are replics of him. Certainly not those "believers" who are nominal and complacent in their comfortable democracies (?). These, imo, would have their "works" weighed...

Well, you're right that it says that those who were beheaded were present at the first resurrection, but it doesn't say anything about only those who were beheaded or suffered were present at the first resurrection. There are only two resurrections, a pre-mil and a post-mil resurrection. The first is for all the saints prior to the millennium, the second is for both saints and non-believers.

I'm having trouble understanding your theology. It seems you have a lot of different ideas mixed into this. You're making a lot of divisions between different kinds of believers and unbelievers and I really can't tell who you are saying is saved and who isn't.

I agree, though from A.John's Revelation the judgement of works occurs in the second resurrection. It is apparent that those who participate in the first resurrection need no evidential justification. Consider 1 Cor 3:12-15, where we encounter at least two classes, those whose foundation is preserved and those whose foundation is burnt up, still both end up being saved.

Both the first and second resurrections are immediately followed by a judgment, which is made evident by John's description in v.4 and v.11-15. Again, I think you're making unnecessary (and sometimes unwarranted) distinctions that make for a very complicated eschatology.

I agree. As I said "A.Paul uses judgement in a variety of ways, so we need to contemplate his words in their context", thus we need to contemplate chapter 5 in A.Paul's over context (and not just his grammatical context). Given Jesus tells us he did not come to judge and he does not judge by external appearances there is a good indication that we in fact bring judgement on ourselves (cp. John 12:47-48; 7:24). 1 Cor 11:29-32 very much has to same contexual parameters as Chapter 5 "if we would judge ourselves, we would not be judged. But when we are judged, we are chastened by the Lord, that we may not be condemned with the world". It also gives us a model of the type of thing we will be judged for "he who eats and drinks in an unworthy manner eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Lord's body".

I think I've said all I really needed to say about what Paul meant when speaking about standing before the judgment seat of Christ. You're grasping for meaning that really stretches beyond what the most immediate context already makes clear. Going that far to strive for an interpretation different than what is clearly conveyed makes it look like you're straining to make it agree with the system you've put together.

Have a close read of Ezekiel 18, God does not attribute the sins of the father upon the son, thus Ezekiel 18 has been used to refute A.Paul's idea of us inheriting Adam's sin. Hence, the teaching I received in my RCC education = "original sin" is inherited as a social princple (environment causes inclination towards sin) not a moral principle (nature - man was created in God's image and so is not inherently sinful).

Are you responding to something I've said? I don't see what this addresses...

You did view the resurrection/s as a court room scene, thus the metaphor of scales of justice. The common viewpoint is that God weighs up all our good deeds and bad deeds to make his decision. Ezekiel demonstrates such a popular and common idea is unscriptural.

You can have a courtroom without scales, and I never implied that God was making any kind of salvific decision based upon works. Their salvation has already been determined (hence, the names found in the book of life), so being judged according to works has to do with degree of punishment for the damned and degree of reward for the redeemed. Again, salvation is by faith alone, and those who put their faith in the Redeemer are found in the book of life.

Howso! No mention of a court room in Rev 20. Just books being opened - the image imo is more like an receivers (auditors) office where the cold decision of whether someone is insolvent or not is made with dispassion.

There's a "great white throne", "him who was seated on [the throne]", "the dead...standing before the throne", and every person to have every lived were "judged, each one of them, according to what they had done", and "if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire". I think that argues pretty strongly for a courtroom scene.

According to Rev 20:12&13, at the 2nd resurrection, whether or not one is written in the book of life, one is judged according to their works.

Hmmm...that's not quite right. If you look closely at those verses, everyone was judged according to their works, but those who were not found written in the book of life were cast into the lake of fire. In other words, those who were written in the book of life were acquitted of every sinful thing found in the books. Christ intercedes on their behalf, much like how Satan accuses on our behalf. The Bible is heavy on courtroom terminology.

All Rev 20:15 tells us is that they all suffer the same fate = are thrown into the lake of fire = experience the second death. There is no indication of degrees of punishment. As I said before, I'm not aware of scripture teaching there are degrees of punishment. If you can correct me on this matter from scripture I'd appreciate it.

The ones I mentioned already up should speak for themselves. If you're still unconvinced I'm OK with that, there's room for disagreement, though I think the Bible is strongly in favor of a gradient system of reward and punishment.

In regards to reward you did point to 1 Cor 3, and to an extent I might agree with you but for the fact that both classes ultimately receive eternal life. One class however is given a special responsibilty for a limited period of time, whether this was a reward or not I'll leave that for you to contemplate.

I don't know why you think our rewards are temporary. Jesus made it a point to tell us to store up treasures in heaven where thief can't steal and moth doesn't destroy. We are striving to serve Christ, yes, but we also know that the Father will openly reward us for our faithful works. If there is no gradient system in place, these kinds of statements (and parables) fall flat.

As James emphatically points out "faith without works is dead", thus it is works that prove one's faith. eg: having personal faith that one is saved, doesn't make one saved, those who are saved act accordingly to the best of their ability. Imo, a "works" include such simple things as appealing to the Holy Spirit to intercede for us, and aid us in overcoming some defect we see in ourselves. Imo, works that are counted are not visible to men, but they more than likely will have a visible manifestation!

You have missed the point I was making = the OT faithful have no participation in the 1st resurrection. They are subject to the second resurrection, the resurrection of judgement!

That's not really what you said, but I'll go with it. Either way, I think you're mistaken about the resurrection.

To an extent but not to the same extent of say a Thayer, Wallace, Harner, Mantey etc.

Good for you, keep studying!

[37818]

Regarding the resurrections (Daniel 12:2) are three classes of people, two of the saved, and one of the lost.

An evangelical/fundamentalist (post trib) view point:

The saved that are alive at the time of the resurrection of the saved are changed, The resurrected saved being resurrected first.
(1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. Revelation 20:4-5.)

The second resurrection takes place at the time of the final judgement when everyone is to be judged. (Revelation 20:11-15.. A sumary is given in Revelation 21:7, 8.)

[apostoli]

Regarding the resurrections (Daniel 12:2) are three classes of people, two of the saved, and one of the lost.

An evangelical/fundamentalist (post trib) view point:

The saved that are alive at the time of the resurrection of the saved are changed, The resurrected saved being resurrected first.
(1 Thessalonians 4:13-18. 1 Corinthians 15:51-52. Revelation 20:4-5.)

The second resurrection takes place at the time of the final judgement when everyone is to be judged. (Revelation 20:11-15.. A sumary is given in Revelation 21:7, 8.)

The difficulty, imu, with that idea is Rev 20:6 "Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power", so if they are judged the judgement has no effect as they are already gauranteed life...

[apostoli]

There are only two resurrections, a pre-mil and a post-mil resurrection. The first is for all the saints prior to the millennium, the second is for both saints and non-believers.

On face value, there is something of a connflict in your statement. If "all saints" are resurrected before the millenium then there are no saints to resurrect in the second. I presume you believe there is a millennial period wherein other saints arise (?) If so where do they come from? From Rev Rev 20:8, I'd suggest "the nations which are in the four corners of the earth". Rev 19 tells us that all those who followed the beast and false prophet where slain, and Rev 20 tells us that everyone else received the first resurrection. Then Rev 20:5 tells us "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished". Who participates in the millennium is a topic I haven't given any thought to and is worth discussing if you have time...

I'm having trouble understanding your theology. It seems you have a lot of different ideas mixed into this. You're making a lot of divisions between different kinds of believers and unbelievers and I really can't tell who you are saying is saved and who isn't.

I'm following RCC teaching as I was taught and understand it, and what Revelation 20 explicitly tells us. "Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power" (Rev 20:6). Those in the 2nd resurrection are judged according to their works and subjected to the second death if they are not found in the Book of Life. Those found in the Book of Life are granted life.

In short, all those who are worthy to be priests, judges and rulers along with Christ participate in the 1st resurrection (cp. Rev 20:4-6) everyone else is judged in the 2nd resurrection - some to life, some to the second death (cp. Rev 20:12-15). Who is saved in the 2nd resurrection? I'd speculate border-line christians (cp. 1 Cor 3:15), the OT faithful and anyone else that meets God's criteria...

Both the first and second resurrections are immediately followed by a judgment, which is made evident by John's description in v.4 and v.11-15.

There is no mention of judgement of the saints in Rev 20:4. In fact we don't find any hint of judgement until "the thousand years are expired [and] Satan shall be loosed out of his prison" (vs7) We then have a war, Satan is defeated and thrown into the lake of fire. Then we have the second resurrection.

I think you're making unnecessary (and sometimes unwarranted) distinctions that make for a very complicated eschatology.

The distinctions are not mine, but those A.John makes. Follow A.John and, imo, the eschatogoly is logical and simple.

You can have a courtroom without scales, and I never implied that God was making any kind of salvific decision based upon works. Their salvation has already been determined (hence, the names found in the book of life), so being judged according to works has to do with degree of punishment for the damned and degree of reward for the redeemed.

As I've said before, there is nothing in scripture that I am aware of that supports your speculation. In fact Jesus' teachings indicate otherwise.

Again, salvation is by faith alone, and those who put their faith in the Redeemer are found in the book of life.

So, would you include Mormons, JWs, Nazarenes and all the other fringe christian groups?

Would you exclude all the OT faithful, who had a hope of an expectation of a redeemer but little or no knowledge of him? What about infants, children, the mentally incapable of comprehension, those that were prohibited by secular intervention from gaining the christian message, those that had no access to the christian message (let alone civilisation of any type) etc etc etc etc?

[theblueprint_Ni]

On face value, there is something of a connflict in your statement. If "all saints" are resurrected before the millenium then there are no saints to resurrect in the second. I presume you believe there is a millennial period wherein other saints arise (?) If so where do they come from? From Rev Rev 20:8, I'd suggest "the nations which are in the four corners of the earth". Rev 19 tells us that all those who followed the beast and false prophet where slain, and Rev 20 tells us that everyone else received the first resurrection. Then Rev 20:5 tells us "But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished". Who participates in the millennium is a topic I haven't given any thought to and is worth discussing if you have time...

Those who put their faith in Christ during the millennium. The saints rule over everyone who wasn't slaughtered at Christs return, presumably those who never took the mark or explicitly followed the Antichrist (probably citizens of other nations who warred with the Antichrist). Those who survived the judgment are neither resurrected nor glorified. They're normal, procreating human beings who live in the millennial kingdom and free from Satanic influence. It would have to be the case that mortal human beings rolled over into the millenium, otherwise who would be left for Satan to deceive when he is released from the pit in Rev. 20? It makes no sense if the Millennium is populated by glorified saints.

I'm following RCC teaching as I was taught and understand it, and what Revelation 20 explicitly tells us. "Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power" (Rev 20:6). Those in the 2nd resurrection are judged according to their works and subjected to the second death if they are not found in the Book of Life. Those found in the Book of Life are granted life.

The second death has no power over those in the second resurrection who are written in the book of life either. The implication is that the redeemed in the first resurrection already put their faith in Christ and received their glorified bodies. On the other hand, everyone else must live on in a world where they might still accept or reject the Gospel.

I

n short, all those who are worthy to be priests, judges and rulers along with Christ participate in the 1st resurrection (cp. Rev 20:4-6) everyone else is judged in the 2nd resurrection - some to life, some to the second death (cp. Rev 20:12-15). Who is saved in the 2nd resurrection? I'd speculate border-line christians (cp. 1 Cor 3:15), the OT faithful and anyone else that meets God's criteria...

Interesting point about the committed faithful. It's something to think about, but I think it creates more problems than it solves when some are denied the first resurrection and are made subject to a questionable kind of works-based judgment by which some may or may not be written in the book of life. Salvation is by faith in Jesus Christ alone and no other criteria outside or added to will influence that judgment.

There is no mention of judgement of the saints in Rev 20:4. In fact we don't find any hint of judgement until "the thousand years are expired [and] Satan shall be loosed out of his prison" (vs7) We then have a war, Satan is defeated and thrown into the lake of fire. Then we have the second resurrection.

Perhaps not, but neither does it give us much detail about what exactly took place in the first resurrection. Again, i think the fact that the Bible speaks of all people being raised and judged is strongly in favor a judgment taking place despite John not taking a detail account of what actually happened.

The distinctions are not mine, but those A.John makes. Follow A.John and, imo, the eschatogoly is logical and simple.

Then I guess there's nothing more for us to discuss since there are no problems at all with how you're putting everything together.

As I've said before, there is nothing in scripture that I am aware of that supports your speculation. In fact Jesus' teachings indicate otherwise.

Luke 19

The Parable of the Ten Minas

11 As they heard these things, he proceeded to tell a parable, because he was near to Jerusalem, and because they supposed that the kingdom of God was to appear immediately. 12 He said therefore, “A nobleman went into a far country to receive for himself a kingdom and then return. 13 Calling ten of his servants,[a] he gave them ten minas,[b] and said to them, ‘Engage in business until I come.’ 14 But his citizens hated him and sent a delegation after him, saying, ‘We do not want this man to reign over us.’ 15 When he returned, having received the kingdom, he ordered these servants to whom he had given the money to be called to him, that he might know what they had gained by doing business. 16 The first came before him, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made ten minas more.’ 17 And he said to him, ‘Well done, good servant![c] Because you have been faithful in a very little, you shall have authority over ten cities.’ 18 And the second came, saying, ‘Lord, your mina has made five minas.’ 19 And he said to him, ‘And you are to be over five cities.’ 20 Then another came, saying, ‘Lord, here is your mina, which I kept laid away in a handkerchief; 21 for I was afraid of you, because you are a severe man. You take what you did not deposit, and reap what you did not sow.’ 22 He said to him, ‘I will condemn you with your own words, you wicked servant! You knew that I was a severe man, taking what I did not deposit and reaping what I did not sow? 23 Why then did you not put my money in the bank, and at my coming I might have collected it with interest?’ 24 And he said to those who stood by, ‘Take the mina from him, and give it to the one who has the ten minas.’ 25 And they said to him, ‘Lord, he has ten minas!’ 26 ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 27 But as for these enemies of mine, who did not want me to reign over them, bring them here and slaughter them before me.’”

Matt 16

Take Up Your Cross and Follow Jesus

24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life[g] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul? 27 For the Son of Man is going to come with his angels in the glory of his Father, and then he will repay each person according to what he has done.

2 Cor. 5:10

For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may receive what is due for what he has done in the body, whether good or evil.

Rev. 22:12

Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done.

Matt 6

3 "But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4 so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you.

19 “Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust[a] destroy and where thieves break in and steal, 20 but lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys and where thieves do not break in and steal.

Maybe you just don't see it, and that's fine. It doesn't change anything for me.

So, would you include Mormons, JWs, Nazarenes and all the other fringe christian groups?

No. Wrong Jesus.

Would you exclude all the OT faithful, who had a hope of an expectation of a redeemer but little or no knowledge of him? What about infants, children, the mentally incapable of comprehension, those that were prohibited by secular intervention from gaining the christian message, those that had no access to the christian message (let alone civilisation of any type) etc etc etc etc?

In short, the OT faithful who knew of the promises of the Redeemer as described in the Scriptures and prophets of their day and believed in them. Infants, yes, because there is Biblical evidence of support that notion (David and Bathseba's son). Those "prohibited", no. Knowledge of Christ is necessary. There is no compelling evidence whatsoever that anyone is saved outside of the knowledge of Jesus Christ.

[37818]

The difficulty, imu, with that idea is Rev 20:6 "Blessed and holy [is] he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death hath no power", so if they are judged the judgement has no effect as they are already gauranteed life...

Of course. Genuine Christians now have eternal life. (1 John 5:12. Romans 8:9. 2 Corinthians 13:5.) We are just awaiting for the immortality of the adoption. (Romans 8:23.) What is judged are works (1 Corinthians 3:11-15.)

Revelation 2:11,

He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith to the churches. He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death.

(see also John 1:12, 13. ! John 5:4, 5. Revelation 21:7.)

[apostoli]

Would you exclude all the OT faithful, who had a hope of an expectation of a redeemer but little or no knowledge of him? What about infants, children, the mentally incapable of comprehension, those that were prohibited by secular intervention from gaining the christian message, those that had no access to the christian message (let alone civilisation of any type) etc etc etc etc?

In short, the OT faithful who knew of the promises of the Redeemer as described in the Scriptures and prophets of their day and believed in them. Infants, yes, because there is Biblical evidence of support that notion (David and Bathseba's son).

I've had a busy day and can't dedicate the time and thought I'd wish before I reply fully to your post, but your comment intrigues me! Would you expand. Imu, David and Bathseba's child was aborted by God because of David's transgression and I'm not aware of the OT text indicating it would be resurrected. I vaguely recall having a conversation here at TWEB where my correspondent equated the child and Jesus as the same person. Is that your opinion?

[theblueprint_Ni]

I've had a busy day and can't dedicate the time and thought I'd wish before I reply fully to your post, but your comment intrigues me! Would you expand. Imu, David and Bathseba's child was aborted by God because of David's transgression and I'm not aware of the OT text indicating it would be resurrected. I vaguely recall having a conversation here at TWEB where my correspondent equated the child and Jesus as the same person. Is that your opinion?

I understand, the days are busy. Take your time.

David talks about how his son won't come back to him but he will go to his son (2 Sam 12:23). It isn't exhaustive but it is positive evidence for babies to be assumed into heaven. As far as the resurrection is concerned, I don't believe there needs to be any exceptional evidence to support a physical resurrection of the child. I believe that everyone will be resurrected, so that's not even a question for me, it's a given.

And no, I wouldn't equate the child with Jesus. I don't see how anyone could or even think to have that position. Jesus was incarnate only once, born of a virgin, and certainly wasn't a product of adultery. No man can claim him, only God the Father can do that.

[Rdr. Arsenios]

Probably not on point, but here is a first hand report of someone who shot herself, died, went to hell, then to heaven, and then back to earth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGQDk...layer_embedded

It is a great story, and it is drenched in truth...

She is not making this up...

Arsenios

[Timothy]

Probably not on point, but here is a first hand report of someone who shot herself, died, went to hell, then to heaven, and then back to earth...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HGQDk...layer_embedded

It is a great story, and it is drenched in truth...

She is not making this up...

Arsenios

Anyone can claim they've been to hell or heaven. Heck, a six year could claim he has seen heaven. Any preacher could claim he has been in hell for 23 minutes or six years. That doesn't make the claims true. Here, I'll demonstrate: I died and went to hell, but everyone there was dead so I came back.