If Physical Death is Final?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Antipas

I think you're missing the point. The term "eternal punishment" has to be considered in it's entirety. The effects of this punishment, be it never ending torture or ages long correction, are eternal. Therefore it is a punishment of an eternal nature....just as life in God is of an eternal nature.

I was not referring to eternal judgment in Heb 6. I just know that some UR folks make the argument that eternal in other places does not mean forever. By the same toke, it cannot mean forever in eternal life, either, then.

That's what Futurists say about Preterists. I think it's an unfair accusation. And for the record...I've defended Preterists from the onslaught of hateful Futurist brethren by being a devil's advocate.

There is a vast difference between timing of tribulation and beast than whether or not everyone will be saved in the end. Bro Epley can attest to that.

But actually there is no eternal judgment if everyone winds up saved in the end. Judgment was temporary, not eternal. We must ascertain what the nature of the adjective eternal is in this issue. It may mean eternal effects, but it still would not mean everyone winds up saved. Judgment is a decision. And the adjective eternal refers to the decision made. It cannot be changed. Such and such as are saved and such and such are lost.

Heb 6 is saying we must agree on those six principles. And UR does not agree with me on eternal judgment. Hence, no fellowship. I think it means we can disagree on other issues outside those six, but those six are musts.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I was not referring to eternal judgment in Heb 6. I just know that some UR folks make the argument that eternal in other places does not mean forever. By the same toke, it cannot mean forever in eternal life, either, then.



There is a vast difference between timing of tribulation and beast than whether or not everyone will be saved in the end. Bro Epley can attest to that.

But actually there is no eternal judgment if everyone winds up saved in the end. Judgment was temporary, not eternal. We must ascertain what the nature of the adjective eternal is in this issue. It may mean eternal effects, but it still would not mean everyone winds up saved. Judgment is a decision. And the adjective eternal refers to the decision made. It cannot be changed. Such and such as are saved and such and such are lost.

Heb 6 is saying we must agree on those six principles. And UR does not agree with me on eternal judgment. Hence, no fellowship. I think it means we can disagree on other issues outside those six, but those six are musts.

Judgment by nature is a process with the purpose to "to make things right" Young's Literal Translation renders it as "age-enduring judgment". Or "an age of judgment", why you and tradition choose to align with Rome and the most harsh, unjust and ungodly position of annihilation or endless torment is beyond comprehension.

[HappyTown]

This might help!


Does Paul Condone Baptism for the Dead (I Corinthians 15:29)?

The practice of being baptized for those who have died is based upon a wrong understanding of I Corinthians 15:29. The New Testament Church did not follow this practice, and the apostle Paul did not teach it. This custom was introduced into the professing Christian world about AD 150 by Marcion, a man who created his own religion and established his own church in Rome in AD 144.

The Bible clearly shows that, before a person may be baptized, he must first repent (Acts 2:38) and believe (Mark 16:16; Acts 16:31, 33). The dead are not able to repent or believe, because "the dead know nothing" (Ecclesiastes 9:5). baptism is for the living; it is a symbol whereby the living acknowledge their sins, figuratively die with Christ in a watery grave, and rise out of that watery grave to live a new, righteous life through Jesus Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Romans 6:4; 8:9; Galatians 2:20).

Baptism is also a symbol of the resurrection. To rise up out of the watery grave is to acknowledge belief in the resurrection of the dead (Romans 6:1-5). To surrender one's life to Christ now, to crucify the self now, to be baptized—all this is foolish unless there is a resurrection of the dead. If there were no hope of the resurrection, life could be summed up this way: "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die" (I Corinthians 15:32).

I Corinthians 15:29 now becomes clear. The whole of I Corinthians 15 concerns the resurrection from the dead. Paul cites the example of those who were baptized as a proof of the resurrection. Their actions symbolized their hope that they would live again. The resurrection is the hope of the dead.

Paul's question seems to be, "Why are they baptized for the dead, if the dead do not rise at all?" (New King James Version). However, this verse is not correctly translated from the Greek. Paul is not talking about being baptized "in the place of," "on behalf of," or "for" the dead. The Greek word translated "for" is huper, and it has several meanings: "above," "over," "instead of," "for the realization of," or "for the hope of," depending upon the context.

For example, Paul declares, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13). As in I Corinthians 15:29, the Greek word translated "for" is huper. In Philippians 2:13, huper cannot mean "instead of." It would be senseless to say, "For it is God who works in you both to will and to do instead of His good pleasure"! Correctly translated, it means, "God works in you both to will and to do for the realization of His good pleasure" (The Analytical Greek Lexicon). What is God's "good pleasure"? "It is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom," says Jesus (Luke 12:32). God works in us "in the hope of" giving us His Kingdom!

Thus, according to the context, hyper in I Corinthians 15:29 should be translated "for the hope of." Notice the verse again: "Otherwise, what will they do who are baptized for the hope of the dead, if the dead do not rise at all? Why then are they then baptized for the hope of the dead?"

What is the hope of the dead? The resurrection! Baptism illustrates the hope of the resurrection. One who is baptized rises out of a watery grave, symbolic of the resurrection. Paul is thus saying, "What good is it to be baptized if we do not rise in a resurrection from the dead? Why then should one be baptized for a hope that would never come true?" However, Paul affirms that, because Christ died and rose again, we have this true hope, the resurrection, to look forward to (I Corinthians 15:17-22).

This verse, then, has nothing to do with the false doctrine of baptism on behalf of the unbaptized dead.

http://www.thetruegospel.org/index.c...hians-1529.htm

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

I was not referring to eternal judgment in Heb 6. I just know that some UR folks make the argument that eternal in other places does not mean forever. By the same toke, it cannot mean forever in eternal life, either, then.

I think you're not grasping the complexity of the biblical languages. Context and subject often define a word. For example consider Habakkuk 3:6, here we see the same Greek word in the Greek text for "everlasting" used twice; and each usage demands a different meaning....

Habakkuk 3:6
He stood, and measured the earth: he beheld, and drove asunder the nations; and the everlasting mountains were scattered, the perpetual hills did bow: his ways are everlasting.

The mountains are "everlasting" because their creation is outside of the boundaries of the author's knowledge and their destruction is outside of his capabilities. This doesn't mean that the mountains were eternal and would never be destroyed. In fact, the author points out that they were indeed scattered. However, in reference to God himself the term "everlasting" is clearly meaning without beginning or ending.

Sadly we often interpret the very fluid language of the Bible in chip choppy computer fashion that demands in our mind that if a word means one thing in one place it must mean the same thing elsewhere. That's just simply not the case Bro. Blume.

There is a vast difference between timing of tribulation and beast than whether or not everyone will be saved in the end. Bro Epley can attest to that.

But actually there is no eternal judgment if everyone winds up saved in the end. Judgment was temporary, not eternal. We must ascertain what the nature of the adjective eternal is in this issue. It may mean eternal effects, but it still would not mean everyone winds up saved. Judgment is a decision. And the adjective eternal refers to the decision made. It cannot be changed. Such and such as are saved and such and such are lost.

Bro. Blume.... we have to define the term "saved". Both eternal punishment believers and universal reconciliation believers believe that only those who embrace and obey the gospel will be saved. What's at issue is, what are they saved from? The eternal torment believer believes that the saved are saved from never ending torture in Hell. The universal reconciliation believer believes that the saved are saved from God's fearsome and corrective punishment. Both the eternal torment believer and the universal reconciliation believer believe that the unbeliever will be condemned by God and are NOT saved from God's judgment. The difference is the eternal torment believer believes that the lost, or unsaved, will NEVER be reconciled to God in the dateless future; whereas the universal reconciliation believer believes that even those who are not saved from God's judgment will eventually be reconciled to God once their judgment performs the necessary correction for their reconciliation. Upon reconciliation it should be noted....these were NOT saved from God's judgment as the believers were...they are simply reconciled. In addition the unsaved who are eventually reconciled do not rule and reign with Christ....believers rule and reign over them throughout eternity. God's judgment and punishment serves an eternal purpose....it's just not torment, it's correction and restoration of all human beings.

So in short, while universal reconciliation believers believe that all will eventually be reconciled...they understand, as do you, that not all will be SAVED from God's wrath and judgment. So it's a misnomer to say that UR believers believe that "everyone will be saved".

Picture with me a conversation with two souls in the UR idea of Heaven in the dateless future when all have been reconciled. You might ask one soul if they were "saved" and they might answer, "Yes, I was saved. When I died I passed straight into the presence of Jesus." However, another soul might answer, "No, I was not saved. When I died I suffered much punishment before God reconciled me according to his grace found only in Christ Jesus."

So no, UR doesn't teach that everyone will be saved. It teaches that everyone will eventually be reconciled.

Heb 6 is saying we must agree on those six principles. And UR does not agree with me on eternal judgment. Hence, no fellowship. I think it means we can disagree on other issues outside those six, but those six are musts.

The UR believer believes that those who are NOT saved will suffer God's judgment and that the effects of that judgment indeed are eternal. So it's impossible to say that the UR believer doesn't believe in eternal judgment. But as you said above...they simply don't agree with you about the nature and purpose of that eternal judgment.

So, on what grounds do you denounce them as being unworthy of your fellowship?

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Antipas

The UR believer believes that those who are NOT saved will suffer God's judgment and that the effects of that judgment indeed are eternal. So it's impossible to say that the UR believer doesn't believe in eternal judgment. But as you said above...they simply don't agree with you about the nature and purpose of that eternal judgment.

So, on what grounds do you denounce them as being unworthy of your fellowship?

On the grounds of disagreement about eternal judgment. I already said that. We must be in agreement with Heb 6's six principles. We cannot each have our own version of it, and fellowship because we claim we each believe those six principles but in actuality disagree with each other over what they even refer to. We have to agree that a certain belief is the correct one and is that which the principle intends, and all believe that single understanding in unity.

Not all being saved from wrath, but all ultimately winding up with eternal life in glory with Jesus, is a far cry from saying not all are saved from wrath from which no one can be delivered or reconciled.

It's not as complicated as you are saying it is.

[bkstokes]

I agree with you Blume. Antipas often tries to turn an issue into a soup of words. By doing this, he tries to cloud the issue and then postulates that because it is so subjective we must accept all of it.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by mfblume

Some argue that ETERNAL means for a limited time, or an age. However, what about the eternal life we get? Must be consistent.

This doctrine, I think, is that vile that I would not even play devil's advocate with it, Antipas. lol

Jude 1:7 (Whole Chapter)
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.





It does sya the cities suffered eternal fire, so are they still burning now?

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by mfblume

On the grounds of disagreement about eternal judgment. I already said that. We must be in agreement with Heb 6's six principles. We cannot each have our own version of it, and fellowship because we claim we each believe those six principles but in actuality disagree with each other over what they even refer to. We have to agree that a certain belief is the correct one and is that which the principle intends, and all believe that single understanding in unity.

Not all being saved from wrath, but all ultimately winding up with eternal life in glory with Jesus, is a far cry from saying not all are saved from wrath from which no one can be delivered or reconciled.

It's not as complicated as you are saying it is.

If God gives the Holy Ghost to UR believers...I don't see how you can argue against having fellowship with them. I break it down kind of like this personally...

Essential Doctrine:
Oneness of God
Acts 2:38 as the full plan of salvation
Christian living
Bodily Return of Jesus Christ

Non Essential Doctrine:
Eschatology (Prophecy)
Eschatology (What happens after death, including UR, soul sleep, etc.)
Various standards of dress and hair
Calvinism
Armenianism

I'd never disfellowship a brother or a sister based on a non-essential teaching. We're more mature than that. UR teaching has no bearing on one's salvation. A believer can be of a UR opinion and be saved, they might discover that their concept was incorrect when they stand before the Lord...but we're all going to find that many things we believe are incorrect when we stand before the Lord. I look at it like this...if a man obeys Acts 2:38 just before he dies, though he believed in UR God will welcome him into Heaven.

But here's the rub...if I don't love my brother, Jesus promises me that I won't be accepted into Heaven. In my mind...that includes the brother who disagrees with me on a theological non-essential. I'd rather be judged has having loved too much....than not enough.

[Antipas]

Originally Posted by bkstokes

I agree with you Blume. Antipas often tries to turn an issue into a soup of words. By doing this, he tries to cloud the issue and then postulates that because it is so subjective we must accept all of it.

I'm sorry Brother Stokes....but sometimes issues are far too complex to fit onto a bumper sticker... though most of us in Pentecost depend on that sort of sound bite theology.

The issue at hand is that I see a group of brothers who desire to disfellowship another group of brothers over an issue that's ultimately in God's hands and can be interpreted several different ways. Some are looking for a reason to hate and separate...I'm admonishing that we look for a reason to love and bridge the gap with a Holy Ghost filled brother.

On a side note...

I wonder if our concept of a God who isn't concerned with reconciling all of mankind plays a part in our willingness to hate and separate from all who do not agree with us, though they have the same Holy Ghost that we do?

Maybe all deviant theologies represented here are of the devil...including Preterism (I jest.)

One man's heresy...is another man's sacrement.

The question is, unless it's an essential for salvation, can we maintain the bonds of love?

[bkstokes]

Originally Posted by Truthseeker

Jude 1:7 (Whole Chapter)
Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.





It does sya the cities suffered eternal fire, so are they still burning now?

Well, seeing how a city (an inanimate object) cannot commit fornication, etc. It would seem that the writer is talking about the people of that city. If the writer is talking about the people, then we can conclude that they are in eternal fire.