Hell

[jriccitelli]

Am I the only person alive who believes: unbelievers are dead in trespasses and sins?
Does anyone on this forum think: men are ‘not’ dead in trespasses and sins?
Do UR proponents (or anyone on this forum) think: people standing (resurrected) at the White throne Judgment (the unbelievers) are thus no longer ‘dead’ in trespasses and sins?

'And you were dead in your trespasses and sins, 2 in which you formerly walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, of the spirit that is now working in the sons of disobedience. 3 Among them we too all formerly lived in the lusts of our flesh, indulging the desires of the flesh and of the mind, and were by nature children of wrath, even as the rest. 4 But God, being rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, 5 even when we were dead in our transgressions…’ (Eph. 2:1-6)
Paul continues, and now calls those saved through faith ‘alive’ (Vs 8). The Greek word (below, vs.6) συνεγείρω means ‘to raise together’. This is not the word usually translated resurrection (anástasis), it is another way to describe the same thing as ‘raise up’, but since Paul is specifically speaking of the believer, this may be why Paul uses the word sunegeiró (συνεγείρω) because it means ‘to raise together, to raise along with’.
‘… made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), 6 and raised us up (συνεγείρω) with Him, and seated us with Him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus’ (Eph. 2:1-6)

Anástasis (my daughters Greek name by the way) means literally to stand up, raise up, rise up. Although many commentaries refer to the resurrection as a bodily resurrection, some say alive, but Conditionalists, and any one who cares to look, will discern that the biblical contexts do not apply this new ‘life’ to anyone other than the righteous and believers in Christ. And that sinners are still under the condemnation and judgment of death (some Traditionalist writers don't note this point, but this is what makes us who notice this point Conditionalists!). My ‘Dictionary of new Testament Theology’ (Colin Brown Ed. 1975, Vol.3) has over twenty pages just on the ‘definition’ of resurrection. It applies resurrected life to believers in Christ and Christ Himself, a definite difference of being in Christ, in contrast to unbelievers who are still under condemnation.

[jriccitelli]

'Then all who have fallen asleep in hope of Him shall rise again. And it shall come to pass at that time that the treasuries will be opened in which is preserved the number of the souls of the righteous, and they shall come forth, and a multitude of souls shall be seen together in one assemblage of one thought, and the first shall rejoice and the last shall not be grieved. 3 For they know that the time has come of which it is said, that it is the consummation of the times. 4 But the souls of the wicked, when they behold all these things, shall then waste away the more. 5 For they shall know that their torment has come and their perdition has arrived' (2 Baruch 30:2-5)

I have no necessary need to prove there is no ‘bodily’ resurrection of the unrighteous (rather that they are raised dead, and still under the sentence of death), but the bodily resurrection of the wicked has been an interesting and revealing study to research, simply because there is so little to support the supposed idea. And as usual the suppositions go back to certain extra biblical teachings i.e. Augustine etc. I would have thought that an open-minded researcher would find such an exploration interesting, but alas.

I have no problem with the unrighteous being raised in ‘some sort of form’ or another, but:
1: Scripture does not allow them to have the same resurrected body, life, or form often described of: which the righteous will experience in the resurrection.
2: Scripture does 'not' allow the dead to be raised ‘without condemnation’ or the ‘sentence of death removed’.
3: Scripture does 'not' allow the unrighteous to be raised with what ‘Jesus defines life to be’.
4. Scripture does promise that 'the righteous' will be raised to life, everlasting life, and glory.
Thus the OT Prophets warnings and words are unaffected by either resurrection, and still in effect.

Even if someone repents post-mortem they still need to inherit eternal 'life' because they don't have it. Jesus said you must be born again and be born of the Spirit to have life, this requirement/condition does not change just because one dies. So all the warning from Genesis on still stand. Previously the responses to this have been that: “they can all still repent post-mortem”. And I have previously given numerous biblical principles on why I do not believe scripture suggests (any or all) men will improve, repent, grow more likely to trust and believe, and want to be holy post-mortem. I have quoted Rev.9:20, 16:9, Hebrews 12:17, etc. as witness, along with the finality of Judgment passages, urgency of repentance in this life passages, mortality and mans likeness to vapor and animals, etc. but alas.

Does anyone know of ‘any’ scriptures a Conditionalist could stand on and not be ridiculed here?

[steve]

Am I the only person alive who believes: unbelievers are dead in trespasses and sins?
Does anyone on this forum think: men are ‘not’ dead in trespasses and sins?
Do UR proponents (or anyone on this forum) think: people standing (resurrected) at the White throne Judgment (the unbelievers) are thus no longer ‘dead’ in trespasses and sins?

I hardly see the relevance of these questions. I personally believe that unbelievers are "dead in trespasses and sins." That is one of many metaphorical uses of the word "dead" in scripture. No one, to my knowledge, has argued against that.

The question you should be addressing is whether people who are "dead in trespasses and sins" are literally "dead" in other senses of the word. Most of the sinners I see walking around me today are physically alive, though "dead in trespasses and sins" (if you had not noticed this, I have to assume that you don't get out much).

When they die, they will be physically dead as well as dead in trespasses and sins. When they are resurrected, they will be physically alive again (as they are now) though still dead in trespasses and sins. Can't you see that being "dead in trespasses and sins" (whatever that phrase may actually mean) does not have any impact on the question of whether someone is physically alive or not? Your argument is unrelated to the question of the physical resurrection of the lost.

I have no necessary need to prove there is no ‘bodily’ resurrection of the unrighteous (rather that they are raised dead, and still under the sentence of death)

In other words, you are saying that you stand corrected without saying that you stand corrected. I can accept that.

but the bodily resurrection of the wicked has been an interesting and revealing study to research, simply because there is so little to support the supposed idea.

There are, indeed, only a few passages that affirm that all the dead will rise bodily. However, since there is not one passage that gives the opposite impression, the evidence is all on one side, which is why orthodox Christianity has never argued otherwise.

And as usual the suppositions go back to certain extra biblical teachings i.e. Augustine etc. I would have thought that an open-minded researcher would find such an exploration interesting, but alas.

It is truly a shame that you have not encountered anyone here with your unique passion for open-minded research. Alas! The shallowness and mediocrity of those who post here (present company excepted, of course!)!

In any case, the doctrine of the resurrection does not go back to Augustine, but to the unambiguous statements of scripture. Augustine differed from some earlier church fathers in that he placed the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked in the same "hour" (as Jesus did—John 5:28-29), whereas many earlier church fathers believed the resurrection of the wicked would be a thousand years later than the resurrection of the righteous. The scriptural statements fit Augustine's theory better than those of the earlier fathers, but all church fathers affirmed a resurrection of the lost, whether simultaneous with, or subsequent to, that of the righteous.

I have no problem with the unrighteous being raised in ‘some sort of form’ or another, but:
1: Scripture does not allow them to have the same resurrected body, life, or form often described of: which the righteous will experience in the resurrection.
2: Scripture does 'not' allow the dead to be raised ‘without condemnation’ or the ‘sentence of death removed’.
3: Scripture does 'not' allow the unrighteous to be raised with what ‘Jesus defines life to be’.
4. Scripture does promise that the righteous will be raised to life, everlasting life, and glory.
Thus the OT Prophets warnings and words are unaffected by either resurrection, and still in effect.

In other words, you finally have no problem with what I have been saying all along. Great!

Previously the responses to this have been that: “they can still repent post-mortem”.

I would be interested in seeing the particular posts in which this was the response you received. Certainly not from me. My response has always been that we do not know whether there is the opportunity for post-mortem repentance or not. As I recall, you are the one professing certainty on the matter.

And I have previously given numerous biblical principles on why I do not believe scripture suggests (any or all) men will improve, repent, grow more likely to trust and believe, and want to be holy post-mortem. I have quoted Rev.9:20, 16:9, Hebrews 12:17, etc. as witness, along with the finality of Judgment passages, urgency of repentance in this life passages, mortality and mans likeness to vapor and animals, etc. but alas.

Indeed! Alas and alack! To find such stubborn correspondents here, who, despite your insistence to the contrary, cannot see any reference in Rev.9:20, 16:9, Hebrews 12:17, etc. to the state of the dead, or their inability to repent. One might multiply a thousand passages about unrepentant people in this present life without coming close to the issue of post-mortem repentance. Likewise, a thousand references to people being destroy, killed or vaporized as the dreaful end of their sojourn on earth leaves unaddressed the questions of post-mortem opportunities. I have pointed these things out to you numerous times—but ALAS!

Does anyone know of ‘any’ scriptures a Conditionalist could stand on and not be ridiculed here?

There are quite a few very repectable Conditionalists at this forum—one, whom I respect above most, is Matt Rose. I don't think any scriptures have been ridiculed here. There has been a lot of disrespect for the scriptures exhibited in the discussion of this topic by the citation of verses to prove points that their authors never intended, though. I don't think this deserves to be called "ridicule," but "grave disrespect" could be considered an appropriate description.

[jriccitelli]

I did not say "scriptures have been ridiculed here" I said: "Does anyone know of ‘any’ scriptures a Conditionalist could stand on..." (the question), without ridiculing the Conditionalist. So, do you know any such scriptures, for instance?
And how is it that I have shown: "... a lot of [grave] disrespect for the scriptures exhibited in the discussion of this topic by the citation of verses to prove points that their authors never intended", that's quite an accusation, what authors or scripture?

[steve]

I didn't name anyone. However, I think it is disrespectful of scripture for you to use passages irrelevant to a topic under discussion, and then insist that the scripture you cited is supporting your point.

[TheEditor]

Greetings,

I have been reading this debate for a long time, perhaps as long as I have been posting here, which is about 4 years now. I am a conditionalist. I was raised a conditionalist as I was raised a JW. But JW conditionalism is a bit more conditional. For starters, the only ones that appear to have a chance are either those who have the good fortune to be born JWs, convert to JWism, or have the good sense to die before Armageddon, so that they can come alive in the general resurrection. Being a JW kind of gives you an edge on that (although the official view on who will and will not be raised has changed not a few times over the years).

When I left the JW Organization, I had a much more generous view of God's benevolence. But, I still thought to myself when encountering UR proponents, "What point is there in following all the rules if there is another bus coming?" However, after having some interaction with URers, I have found that, for the most part, they seem to be people that are given to godliness, despite the fact that they think, in effect, there's another bus coming.

Right now I do hold to Conditionalism and Future Probation. Perhaps I am wrong, perhaps not. But, I have become convinced that if anyone allows their view of judgment and the afterlife to be the determining factor as to whether or not they will try to please God, then they are doing so for the wrong reasons.

While pleasing to the intellect to engage in this kind of discussion (believe me, I spent plenty of years banging on doors and arguing and enjoyed every minute of it) I wonder if it really matters?

The curiousity is understandable ("Accordingly, when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: "Lord, what will this man do?""), still, perhaps we aren't given the details for a reason ("Jesus said to him: "If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.") -- John 21:22.


Regards, Brenden.

[steve]

Hi Brendan,

Thanks for sharing. I agree with you, of course. In fact, the scripture with which you closed your post is the same as that with which I closed my book on hell.

[TheEditor]

Hi Steve,

Interesting. It's always been my default verse for the "unknowns". I haven't read your book yet (things are very tight as I'm under-employed at the moment) but I will eventually. I have the Three Views of Revelation book which I enjoyed.

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

There has been a lot of disrespect for the scriptures exhibited in the discussion of this topic by the citation of verses to prove points that their authors never intended… (Steve, 10:25am)

I didn't name anyone. (Steve, above 1:32pm)

Then how do I know what your talking about, bible authors or commentaries? Is it this author?

a) You are trying to convince me of a point, yet I have already told you that commentaries do not convince me (unless, of course, they provide scriptural evidence, which Ellicott does not, in this paragraph) (Steve, pg.12)

I have noted numerous times that commentaries do not convince me either, but you repeatedly try and paint me as out on a limb as if I am the 'only' one who believes this. How else can I defend such a statement?? Other than to do so, and prove so many others agree with me and that theology supports CI (whether Traditionalists recognize it or not). I never said it ‘was’ my interpretation, nor did I say it was 'most' likely, but your comment said:

1Peter 4:6 … is one of the most obscure statements in the Bible, and is capable of more than one interpretation (yours not being the most likely)” (Steve, pg 12. 5/13)

b) The commentary you cite is on 1 Peter 3:19, whereas we are discussing an entirely different passage. Don’t you recall? You are the one who cited the passage (1 Peter 4:6) in the first place. Why not quote commentaries (if you must) on the passage under consideration? (Steve, pg.12, 5/14)

I thought it would be clear to a bible student that 1 Peter 4:6 is reflecting on 3:19. It may be noted in Ellicott’s commentary on 1 Peter 3:19 that: “… some have thought that Christ went to proclaim to them the certainty of their damnation! The notion has but to be mentioned to be rejected with horror; but it may be pointed out also that in 1Peter 4:6, which refers back to this passage, it is distinctly called a “gospel”
If one continues reading on (Ellicott’s commentary) to 1 Peter 4:6 Elicott says: “The Greek is simply, For this end was the gospel preached to the dead also, or, still more literally, to dead men also. No one with an un-preoccupied mind could doubt, taking this clause by itself; that the persons to whom this preaching was made were dead at the time of being preached to. If this is the case, then, pretty obviously, St. Peter is carrying us back to his teaching of 1Peter 3:19, and is explaining further the purpose of Christ’s descent into hell” (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_peter/4-6.htm )
1 Peter 3:19 and 4:6 are not "entirely different", and Ellicotts commentary is talking about the exact same point and passages.

[jriccitelli]

When they die, they will be physically dead as well as dead in trespasses and sins. When they are resurrected, they will be physically alive again (as they are now) though still dead in trespasses and sins. Can't you see that being "dead in trespasses and sins" (whatever that phrase may actually mean) does not have any impact on the question of whether someone is physically alive or not? Your argument is unrelated to the question of the physical resurrection of the lost (Steve)

‘You’ say the unrighteous are ‘alive’, but where does the bible say they are?
Again: Being ‘raised’ (resurrected) does not make them ‘alive’.
Again: Dying does not make sinners ‘alive’.
They are "dead in trespasses and sins" because they broke the commandment not to sin (Gen. 2:17, Romans 5:14).

Great, you believe that sinners are dead in sins post-mortem, this is the definition of death the Prophets have been warning them of (and Paul and Jesus quote from this OT context). This is the death that OT Isaiah, Joel, Amos, Hosea, Daniel, Ezekiel, etc. speak of: ultimate death. How was our argument about death unrelated to biblical definitions of death?

“the physical resurrection of the lost” in your mind means they are alive.
But I say they are still dead in biblical terms (under the sentence of death: 'not life'), and that being resurrected did not remove the OT sentence that put them to death in the first place. Then the dead person is Judged at the Judgment, and the conscious dead person will suffer his degree of punishment and then the second death. The bible does not lift the sentence of death after death (no more than the sentence of punishment is lifted), so then: the lake of fire also is the same sentence/condemnation/judgment of death promised in Genesis 2:17.
This whole argument has been over whether or not we can introduce OT scripture to define the fate of the wicked and unrighteous (as we do so for the righteous). You have said the OT judgments of death and destruction on the wicked and the unrighteous speak only of temporal death, and cannot be applied to the fate of the spirit post-mortem, is this still true for you?

Isaiah seemed to recognize the contrast between the two different post-mortem scenarios of death, life, resurrection and judgment in chapter 26, one resurrection for the righteous and one (or none) for the ‘not’:
The dead will not live, the departed spirits will not rise;
Therefore You have punished and destroyed them,
And You have wiped out all remembrance of them. (Isa. 26:14)
Your dead will live;
Their corpses will rise.
You who lie in the dust, awake and shout for joy,
For your dew is as the dew of the dawn,
And the earth will give birth to the departed spirits. (Isa. 26:19)
(Interesting that the English translation of 26:14 does not suggest ghosts will rise at all, either way this doesn't change the point of who is will 'live' and who will 'not')