My Case for eternal Hell

[steve]

I was looking at a parallel to 2 Thessalonians 2:8, in Rev 19/20. Here it talks about the False profit being thrown into the lake of fire. This is makes me think that you were right, Steve in saying that 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is talking about punishement of the lawless one's soul, not just the destruction of his body. I still think that 2 Thessalonians 2:8 is not clear enough to say that it will be the presence of the Lord that "distroys" him.

From the verses I cited, in 2 Thessalonian 2 and Revelation 20, it would be safe to say that the presence of the Lord was what destroyed the man of sin and the cosmos, but that is not a necessary point. What I have been suggesting is that 2 Thessalonians 1:9 speaks of a destruction that proceeds " from the presence of the Lord" (in contrast to your suggestion that the destruction takes the form of banishment "from the presence of the Lord").

You had disputed this point by saying that, if the presence of the Lord had this destructive effect, it would destroy us all, and argued that the presence of the Lord could not have this result. I replied that there are places that speak of the presence (or face) of the Lord having this effect (e.g., upon the man of sin, and the heavens and earth). It was no part of my argument that souls were being destroyed in any of the passages discussed—nor was I putting forward any eschatological position about hell, the Lake of Fire, etc. I was seeking to provide a fair interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 1:9 and its use of the phrase "from the presence of the Lord."

You were saying that the breath that distroys from Jesus' mouth is the destuctive presence of Jesus and that his presence is the lake of fire (second death) that will burn up this lawless one.

I do not think I made any such assertions. They do not reflect my beliefs.

[Ambassador791]

You were saying that the breath that distroys from Jesus' mouth is the destuctive presence of Jesus and that his presence is the lake of fire (second death) that will burn up this lawless one.


I do not think I made any such assertions. They do not reflect my beliefs.

The idea that the wicked will experience a destruction that proceeds from the presence of the Lord is unmistakably Paul's (and Revelation's) doctrine. In the same book (2 Thessalonians 2:8), Paul says of the man of sin, that "the Lord will consume [him] with the breath of His mouth and destroy with the brightness of His coming." That has a very destructive sound to it

This is what caused me to think that you think the breath of Jesus is the "distruction" of the wicked that proceeds from himself. Any way, I don't want to missrepresent what you believe.

I want to just thank you for taking the time to go over this with me, I listen to your show. After listening to your three views on hell mp3, I did not know which view was correct. After a year and ahalf of not having a opinion, Iam looking at the subject again and I'm leaning back to the eternal hell view...if you havent noticed. This is a good place to take a view like this for a test spin (my proof texts) and get a little feed back from you guys.

I'll keep it up as long as you guys do, or until you convince me that your view is right, I still want to respond to a couple of things steve7150 said a few posts ago. If you do convince me, it's only because Ive got two Steves to deal with, not just one.

[Todd]

Ambassador791,

Since this thread is about the Eternal Torment view of Hell, I thought I would list a few of my main reasons for rejecting it.

1. It is unbalanced (unjust).

Infinite punishment for a finite amount of sins is unjust and unbalanced. The scriptures state that each one will be rewarded according to what he has done whether good or bad (2 Cor 5:10). The eternal torment view does not remotely fit this description.

2. It serves no constructive purpose.

What would be the point of punishing someone forever? A father punishes his son in hopes that he will repent. The Father of mercies (2 Cor 1:3) would not keep someone alive solely for the purpose of inflicting pain and torment. If someone did so in the world today, he would be considered the worst monster imaginable and all righteous nations would rise up to defeat him.

3. If God is to punish his enemies forever, why did Jesus teach us to love our enemies and do good unto them?

Matt 5:43-48 NKJV
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

Todd

[Ambassador791]

3. If God is to punish his enemies forever, why did Jesus teach us to love our enemies and do good unto them?

Yes, FOR US it is not an eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth. We don't judge and pay back we do good instead...but what about God?:

Romans 12:19 Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay,” says the Lord. (20) On the contrary: “If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head.”

When we do good to our enemies , this does not translate into us "doing what Jesus will do".On the contary, The good we do when we could have repayed with wrath will translate into wrath. This is not God saying: "be like me, just pay them back with good" It is him saying, don't be like me, because I will pay them back, and it wont be good."

Infinite punishment for a finite amount of sins is unjust and unbalanced. The scriptures state that each one will be rewarded according to what he has done whether good or bad (2 Cor 5:10). The eternal torment view does not remotely fit this description.

Let me quote myself, and then I will explain (I do believe that different degrees of punishment exist).

"Even if every sin of every sinner was paid for tomorrow, that would not solve the probem of him being Gods enemy and wanting to take his place. Without the sinner being born again, he not only has a problem because he is guilty, but IS a problem because of WHO he is."

I believe that man is a true, untamed enemy against God...set by his sinful nature to eclipse God himself, and that he will continue in this state against God for as long as he exists, unless he is born again.

The sinner will be supernatural after God raises him to be judged. If you are existing on the other side of death where we will ALL be judged,...you ARE supernatural. I can't see any reason why a SUPERnatural being would die of NATURAL causes.That's right, no old age after death. The only thing that we know of that wears things down in our natural world (second law of thermodynamics) will not follow us into the after life because it is natural by definition.

But, you say, the lost will not be given eternal life.True. Eternal life will only be given to believers. I think that this translates into being with God for eternity. Being with God is "life", and with out him ..."death". On earth, we are called "alive in Christ". The alternitive to being alive in Christ is called "dead" (without Christ). On earth, those who do not partake of Christs life still live.So, not having the life that comes from God, does not mean that your soul or body is dead at all. For all we know, after you are resurrected, you may remain existing ("dead") outside of this life for eternity. You may have eternity, but not eternal life.

Now, If man rebels against God, It could very well be that he deserves one second of punnishment for every second of rebellion against the king. What is unbalanced about that? Is this rebellion really that bad? Read what I wrote below for a summery.

The unregenerated man is guided by his sin nature to blot God out in every way he can! If man wants to be like God and put himself in God’s place…where would that leave God if man had the power to do this? I believe that man would kill God if he had the power to do so, and I think there might be an example of this in the bible ( ; . Man hates God, even if he regrets his punishment.

I believe that this is the test of life. God steps back for a season and makes it appear that each person has the power to do with God as he wants. So, man blots God out of his own personal universe to declare himself god. Jesus said that hating your brother is as good as murder, and adultery in the mind as good as doing it outwardly. What about the mental assassination of the God of the universe?

I used to wonder how it was that God could allow a sinner like me into heaven even though I am no where near perfect. I think the answer is that God can handle our temporal offenses and sins, but if we are not on his side, if we are set against him, and want him done away with…THAT is a whole other problem. A problem that can only be reversed by a changed nature.

If a murderer wanted to kill you and take your place…how long should he be locked up for? I would say for as long as he would continue wanting you gone. That would be just, wouldn’t it? Let me ask you something…after Satan has burned the equivalent time in hell that his own sin warrants…should he be let into heaven? I would say no…because he wants God’s place and subtracting the payment of sins will not solve that.

[Todd]

When we do good to our enemies , this does not translate into us "doing what Jesus will do".On the contary, The good we do when we could have repayed with wrath will translate into wrath. This is not God saying: "be like me, just pay them back with good" It is him saying, don't be like me, because I will pay them back, and it wont be good."

I disagree. Let's look again at what Jesus said.

Matt 5:43-48 NKJV
43 "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.' 44 But I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, 45 that you may be sons of your Father in heaven; for He makes His sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward have you? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet your brethren only, what do you do more than others? Do not even the tax collectors do so? 48 Therefore you shall be perfect, just as your Father in heaven is perfect.

To me, it seems that Jesus is saying, perfect love (like God's love) means doing good unto everyone. Twice (underlined above) Jesus indicates that in order to be like God we should do good even unto our enemies, just as God brings rain upon the unjust and the sunlight upon evil-doers.

So does God stop being good to his enemies in judgment? I don't believe so. God is not double-minded nor does he flip-flop. I believe His judgments are also meant for good. His judgments serve to teach a lesson; to bring about repentence; to turn around the life of the sinner.

The unregenerated man is guided by his sin nature to blot God out in every way he can! If man wants to be like God and put himself in God’s place…where would that leave God if man had the power to do this? I believe that man would kill God if he had the power to do so, and I think there might be an example of this in the bible ( ; . Man hates God, even if he regrets his punishment.

I don't see it this way. Most people believe in God, function well in society, do some good deeds, but have varying degrees of selfishness. Your description makes it sound like non-christians are all evil. There is a very small minority that we might consider evil who seem to delight in harming others, but even these are just misguided and I believe are tormented in their soul because of their actions (God rewarding them for their works while desiring their repentance).

I believe that this is the test of life. God steps back for a season and makes it appear that each person has the power to do with God as he wants. So, man blots God out of his own personal universe to declare himself god. Jesus said that hating your brother is as good as murder, and adultery in the mind as good as doing it outwardly. What about the mental assassination of the God of the universe?

Does a good father allow his child to do wrong without correction? Your description here makes it sound like God lets everyone live out their entire life unchecked and uncorrected, and then, if we don't get it right, we get punished when it is too late to do anything about it. This cannot be right! God deals with sin in real-time. The guilt one feels when he knows he has wronged someone is the very first dart God uses to encourage repentance. God's judgments are remedial; He loves everyone and never gives up.

Todd

[Ambassador791]

Read this whole post, I believe that towards the end I undoubtedly prove that Universalism is false.

So does God stop being good to his enemies in judgment? I don't believe so. God is not double-minded nor does he flip-flop.

I believe His judgments are also meant for good. His judgments serve to teach a lesson; to bring about repentence; to turn around the life of the sinner.

(Let me sum up what I think you are saying to properly respond)

First let me say that this discussion is about how God will punish. I will argue that if God sends anyone to eternal punishment (this includes annihilation), he did it because it was a good and right thing to do ( I know you are talking about another aspect of good, I will get to that) . I am arguing that anything short of rebirth will not stop the rebellion of man (this is biblical), and if he does continue to exist (supernatural souls do not die of natural causes) as a rebel, God would still be good and just in matching the rebel, second for second for every moment of his rebellion. This would be a balanced judgment. O. k, God is still good to this point.

There is another point:

Does a good father allow his child to do wrong without correction? Your description here makes it sound like God lets everyone live out their entire life unchecked and uncorrected

…Yes, he does that to those who are not his sons. Yes, he draws them by his spirit and light of creation to bring them to the cross. This is good. The "good", regenerating work of the spirit that brings correction is done in the lives of his sons on the other side of the cross. This is the father caring for his children.

The closest thing I can think of to the "correcting good" from a father towards his children would be a type of sanctification, a chastening of a person to make them good and separated to God.

In Heb 12/ 6,7 the writer says that “ the Lord disciplines the ones he loves and he punishes everyone he accepts as sons…”if you are not disciplined…you are illegitimate children and not true sons”

The people God judges worthy of wrath on judgment day are not his sons. This kind of good discipline that actually corrects is given to his sons. The good done to the sinner that could lead to repentance is to do just that, lead to repentance to save him from wrath. That good he got was given under grace. If he suffers wrath, he is no longer under grace and should not expect undeserved grace, because he is under wrath. In other words, he threw away God´s good opportunities’. I believe that this is separation, destruction from God. You are away from his grace and presence. The good that corrects a son is done on the other side of the cross through the sanctifying work of the spirit. If the sinner does not repent, there is no reason to believe that he will be punished as a son in order to be corrected. The discipline mentioned in Heb 12 that you want for the sinner is for adopted sons.

You say that it would not be God´s character to stop doing this kind of good to anyone. I think that where you are missing it is that this type good is given under grace, wrath is another story. By definition, wrath is devoid of the kind of good you speak of. All the more reason not to go there.

Does a good father allow his child to do wrong without correction?

So does God stop being good to his enemies in judgment? I don't believe so. God is not double-minded nor does he flip-flop.

If God treats everyone as his sons, he has flipped flopped. The point of the gospel is to convince the sinner to be adopted as a son so that they may be corrected through regeneration and sanctification. If the sinner is treated and cared for as a son, what does the term "adoption" mean in respect to the sinner in scripture?


Your analogy of what a father does and does not do breaks down here precisely because God will not forgive those that are not adopted as his children. Forgiveness is the first step to bringing correction and healing to a relationship. Fathers forgive their children. We are talking about people that will not be forgiven. If I do not forgive my children there is no where left to go.

Eph 2:12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Notice that this says that the sinner is separated from Christ and without Hope.


If it were the case that God is working in the lives of all sinners for their good as a father even in wrath to secure their entrance into heaven, everyone would have hope, unlike what this verse says. They would not really be separated from God at all. If this were true, I could say to an unbeliever on his death bed that he may be punished for a while but the great thing is that his father (that is even his father in his last moments) is always looking out for him and will never allow anything "bad" to happen.

The problem is that the gospel offers ”no hope” at all for the sinner apart from Christ. We should not try to sanitize the Gospel, injecting it with hope it does not really offer the unbeliever. The only hope in the universe for the lost is in Jesus.

There is something else going on here.

First I must note that you say that if the good that God does, does not restore the sinner, if he never leaves his punishment then it is not really good at all. Then you would have to say that even Hitler will be restored, because if he were not God would not have made a good judgment, but a "bad" one.

What I am about to write, as far as I´m concerned proves that universalism is no where near a Christian doctrine. It may be that good Christians believe it, but with out realizing it´s implications.

I realize that the Christian Universalist would say that if a man gets out of hell it will be because of Christ´s work on the cross. This cannot be. If you go to hell and pay for your sins, if it were possible for you to reach the end of your guilt there , Jesus could NEVER be your savior. He can´t be your savior, because YOU were able to pay for your sins WHITHOUT him. This is an entrance into heaven by works. You just have to work your way into heaven through hell. I know that Universalist would like to say that it would be Jesus that saves them. But, maybe someone can tell me, if the sinner WORKS off his sin in hell, of what use is Jesus to that man? NONE AT ALL.

This is a path to heaven with out Jesus. Jesus is no longer the only door to heaven. This says that the narrow path becomes a super highway after death. The sinner can live his life with out Christ, die, pay for his sins and then go to heaven, without ever knowing or needing Jesus.

Going to heaven through hell may be an agonizing way to get there, but it is a path void of a savior, void of Jesus.

You could try to say that after paying for sins Jesus will still be their savior. No. He will not. Jesus ´sacrifice was to pay for our sins, after you have paid for them…Jesus´sacrifice is of no use to you. At heavens gate while Christians are bowing down to their savior you can say to him, as you were Jesus, excuse me, as you walk in on your own merit.

This suggests that people will be in heaven with those saved by Christ, but we will not be brothers in Christ with them because they were never in Christ.

Christianity without the cross is not Christianity. I cannot see any merit in this view after seeing it this way. As I said, I am sure there are good, born again Christians that hold thins view, but I don´t believe they can if they understand it´s logical end.

[steve7150]

I realize that the Christian Universalist would say that if a man gets out of hell it will be because of Christ´s work on the cross. This cannot be. If you go to hell and pay for your sins, if it were possible for you to reach the end of your guilt there , Jesus could NEVER be your savior. He can´t be your savior, because YOU were able to pay for your sins WHITHOUT him. This is an entrance into heaven by works. You just have to work your way into heaven through hell. I know that Universalist would like to say that it would be Jesus that saves them. But, maybe someone can tell me, if the sinner WORKS off his sin in hell, of what use is Jesus to that man? NONE AT ALL.

This is a path to heaven with out Jesus. Jesus is no longer the only door to heaven. This says that the narrow path becomes a super highway after death. The sinner can live his life with out Christ, die, pay for his sins and then go to heaven, without ever knowing or needing Jesus.





First of all when we sin we do create a debt and one way or the other the debt must be satisfied. If the debt can be satisfied by the sinner after death that does'nt make him righteous by God's standards. It just means he had a debt and paid it but in the OT it was not keeping the law perfectly that saved you or satisfying the law, it was faith in God and later faith in Christ as Lord. So i think paying your sin debt after this life only puts you in a position to appeal to Christ who will still be the judge. There is no heaven without Christ, he still will be the door and no one comes to the Father except through him.

[steve]

Ambassador,

You wrote to me privately and wanted me to respond to your last post, so here is a brief response.

You wrote:

The good done to the sinner that could lead to repentance is to do just that, lead to repentance to save him from wrath. That good he got was given under grace. If he suffers wrath, he is no longer under grace and should not expect undeserved grace, because he is under wrath. In other words, he threw away God´s good opportunities’.

When you say that a person under wrath should not expect undeserved grace, I have to ask what condition you and I were in before we came to Christ? Were we not "children of wrath, even as others"? Yet we were encouraged to hope in the grace of God and we received it. Who is it that can expect undeserved grace, if not those who are under wrath? I am not sure that we can say when the cut-off point is for God-given opportunities for men to receive grace. You are placing the limit at death. Is there scripture to support that? Maybe so, but none immediately comes to mind.

You say that it would not be God´s character to stop doing this kind of good to anyone. I think that where you are missing it is that this type good is given under grace, wrath is another story. By definition, wrath is devoid of the kind of good you speak of.

I don't know that this is, by definition, true...
"In wrath remember mercy" (Hab.3:2).
"Thou hast taken away all thy wrath: thou hast turned thyself from the fierceness of thine anger" (Psalm 82:3).
"In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee" (Isa.54:8)
"for in my wrath I smote thee, but in my favour have I had mercy on thee" (Isa.60:10)
"He will not always strive, Nor will He keep His anger forever." (Ps.103:9)

If the sinner is treated and cared for as a son, what does the term "adoption" mean in respect to the sinner in scripture?

Adoption is a word loaded with privileges. Those who have not received adoption are deprived of these privileges. This does not mean that there are no crumbs, which fall from the children's table, for the dogs. One might easily imagine a range of categories that are neither "sonship" nor "damnation"—perhaps even the "dogs," for example, which do not live within the City of New Jerusalem (Rev.22:15).

Your analogy of what a father does and does not do breaks down here precisely because God will not forgive those that are not adopted as his children. Forgiveness is the first step to bringing correction and healing to a relationship. Fathers forgive their children. We are talking about people that will not be forgiven.

Fathers ought to forgive their children, and also they ought to forgive other people's children, if Jesus' teachings are to be our guide. This generous spirit, which we are to have even to our enemies and persecutors, is recommended for the express purpose of our conforming to the heart of God Himself (Matt.5:44-45). When the disciples wished to call fire out of heaven on a city that was rejecting Christ, He told them "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of" (Luke 9:55). There is a danger that we may not discern what manner of spirit we are of in deciding that there should be fire without mercy upon those who are not Christians.

Eph 2:12 remember that at that time you were separate from Christ, excluded from citizenship in Israel and foreigners to the covenants of the promise, without hope and without God in the world.

Notice that this says that the sinner is separated from Christ and without Hope.

I have written about this elsewhere on this forum (I don't recall where). "Without hope" is used differently in our speech than in Paul's. We say someone is without hope if their objective circumstances cannot be remedied—we tend to mean their situation is hopeless. By contrast, Paul talks of hope as an inward disposition of optimistic trust in the promises of God. Those who are not saved have no way of knowing this subjective sense of hope, as we do. Whether there is a remedy for their plight is another question.

In the example you cited, Paul says that we were once the ones who were "without hope." Does that mean we had no prospect of being saved? No. Paul's point is that we were saved out of a condition in which we had no inward sense of hope in life. Objectively, there was hope of our getting saved—because we actually did get saved. Others who are "without hope," as we were, may yet get saved as well.

They would not really be separated from God at all. If this were true, I could say to an unbeliever on his death bed that he may be punished for a while but the great thing is that his father (that is even his father in his last moments) is always looking out for him and will never allow anything "bad" to happen.

It is possible that Todd, and other "no hellers" would suggest that nothing "bad" will happen to sinners after they die. This is not the general belief of evangelical universalists.

The problem is that the gospel offers ”no hope” at all for the sinner apart from Christ.

.

That there is no hope of salvation apart from Christ is a conviction shared by all evangelicals—including evangelical universalists.

I realize that the Christian Universalist would say that if a man gets out of hell it will be because of Christ´s work on the cross. This cannot be. If you go to hell and pay for your sins, if it were possible for you to reach the end of your guilt there , Jesus could NEVER be your savior. He can´t be your savior, because YOU were able to pay for your sins WHITHOUT him.

I may have missed some earlier posts on this. Did someone say that sinners go to hell in order to "pay for" (as in "pay off") their sins?

This is an entrance into heaven by works. You just have to work your way into heaven through hell…if the sinner WORKS off his sin in hell, of what use is Jesus to that man? NONE AT ALL.

Who has suggested that people will "work" in hell for their salvation?

This is a path to heaven with out Jesus. Jesus is no longer the only door to heaven. This says that the narrow path becomes a super highway after death. The sinner can live his life with out Christ, die, pay for his sins and then go to heaven, without ever knowing or needing Jesus.

You may have been in conversation with universalists of a different stripe from those known to me. Evangelical universalists, so far as I am aware, do not believe in anyone "working" for their salvation in hell. They believe that people in hell will be saved in just the same manner as we are saved today, through repentance and trust in Christ—albeit postmortem.

This suggests that people will be in heaven with those saved by Christ, but we will not be brothers in Christ with them because they were never in Christ.

There is a lot of talk about going to heaven in your post. I don't expect to live in heaven after the judgment, and I don't expect lost sinners to go there either. Whether people can and will repent after death, in the lake of fire, I cannot say, because I find no clear biblical discussion on the topic. However, if such people do repent, I would expect them to be in the same new earth as we will inhabit. They may not have the same privileges as those who suffered with Christ in this life (and who consequently will reign with Him), but I would expect God to have some place other than hell for them. I think Jesus would like to see everyone saved, and I can't imagine how anyone sharing His sentiments could object to that prospect, unless God revealed otherwise.

[Todd]

Ambassador791,

Thank you for your post regarding my assertions about the love of God and how God punishes people for their good. Since you have not read any of the old threads in this section, you would not be aware that I hold a different position about Universalism than others who are hopeful of this doctrine. Steve made reference to me as a "no heller," which is probably an appropriate label, although it is a bit of misnomer. I have been considering the possibility of Universalism for about 5 years now. Of the three views of hell which are most commonly defended, I find that they all have "problems" that make them hard for me to embrace. I will not rehash them again in this post, but there is a fourth view which, to me, seems more likely; namely, that the references to God's wrath and punishment (i.e., hell) are inflicted upon the disobedient in this life (not after the resurrection). Those who do not repent, suffer wrath until they die, but this punishment is meant to encourage the sinner to repent and turn to God so that, "he will be a vessel for honor, sanctified and useful for the Master, prepared for every good work" (2 Tim 2:21).

Although it may be said that sin has its "pleasures", it is also true that sin carries with it both spiritual and natural consequences. Those who are overcome in sin are described in the New Testament as "dead" (as you also point out).

1 Tim 5:6
But she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives.

Those who are living selfishly and with a carnal mind are convicted by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8), may be given over by God to a "debased mind" (Rom 1:28), and perhaps even suffer God's wrath through the minsitry of the governing authorities (Rom 13:1-6). It is from this kind of existence in this life that Christ came to save us; He came to deliver us from the consequences of our sin unto a new life blessed by the Holy Spirit with love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, and self control.

So then, you may ask, what happens when Christ returns, and what about the judgment? First of all, I don't believe Christ's judgment is restricted to a single day which doesn't commence until Christ returns from heaven to resurrect the dead. Christ, the Judge, has been on His throne executing judgment since He took his place at God's right hand. All nations are gathered before Him now, and he "separates them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats (Matt 25:32)." If you look at this passage from Matthew you'll notice that the criteria for punishment is based on the works of the people; those who show compassion on the needy are spiritually blessed, while those who lack this compassion are spiritually punished. This is something that happens everyday around us in this life.

And what of the resurrection of the dead? I think that the description of this event is best explained in 1 Cor 15 and Rom 8:18-23. Both these passages indicate that the "dead in Christ" or as they are also called, the "sons of God," will be raised first; these will "reign with Christ." The rest of creation (mankind) will follow and will share the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom 8:21). There is no mention in either of these passages about any post resurrection judgment or punishment.

As you can see, this "fourth" view does not support anything resembling someone working their way into heaven (New heaven and the new earth). The only way anyone gets resurrected and puts on immortality is because Christ died and was raised again.

1 Cor 15:20-22
20 But now Christ is risen from the dead, and has become the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. 21 For since by man came death, by Man also came the resurrection of the dead. 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ all shall be made alive.

Todd

[steve7150]

Those who are living selfishly and with a carnal mind are convicted by the Holy Spirit (John 16:8),






I think it's not about living selfishly according to this verse, it's that the world is convicted of sin for not believing in Jesus Christ. I think it's our conscience that convicts us of individual sins because we gained the knowledge of good and evil in Eden and that knowledge resides in the mind.