Calvinism Is The Gospel, So Only Believers Of Calvinism Are Saved.

[meshak]

But not correct.

So you are denying what it says?

 

[Bright Raven]

So you are denying what it says?

No he is not. You just do not understand what it says. Neither does Rosenritter

 

[meshak]

No he is not. You just do not understand what it says. Neither does Rosenritter

You guys just don't understand simple and clear statements for some reason.

It is so weird.

 

[Idolater]

...Jonathan has quite a reputation as a "hell and brimstone" preacher, being perhaps best remembered for his sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." Mr. Edwards admits that annihilation is an everlasting punishment and satisfies the Scripture expressions.

He's a champion of the Clavinists on top.

If you will no longer be arguing that being everlastingly "snuffed out of existence" is a temporary thing, do you have any scripture that would state that the wicked are given everlasting life?

Do you believe that they are risen from the dead, changed into new bodies, and then, as those immortal bodies (not their first, mortal body; their new body), they are then killed?

I'm not setting a trap. I think that punishment sounds worst of all, to be our new, glorified body, to know that it's immortal and that we will never die because our body cannot die, and then to be killed anyway, to know that you're being killed, in your brand new immortal body, that's all set for eternity; that would be awful. And if that's what the wicked deserve, according to God, then who are we to "repliest against God?" Ro9:20KJV

 

[Tambora]

Eternal punishment means exactly that. It does not mean snuffed out of existence in a brief moment of judgement.

Correct.
Even one that is alive and breathing can be called "dead" as the prodigal son was.
He did not physically die but was still said to be alive, then dead, then alive again.

When considering that "death/dead" and "life/alive" are opposites, one needs to ask themselves what those opposites entailed in the story of the prodigal son because he certainly did not cease to exist.

It is the same with the word "perish".
It does not automatically mean ceased to exist.
Example:

2 Peter 3 KJV
(6) Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:​

The world perished, it did not cease to exist.

 

[glorydaz]

I'm simply following what scripture says, which describes a different definition of "life," which you seem to have confused with something else

We are currently alive, here on this earth. We have life in our bodies.

When we die, however, we are both dead and alive. Our bodies, which are part of us, are dead, yet we are still alive, because we are more than just our bodies. Our soul/spirit is alive, yet our body is dead.

Death is just separation.

Physical death is separation of our body and soul/spirit. So, in a sense, those who are in hell currently (and they are indeed in hell, not in "soul-sleep") are dead, as they are physically dead, But they are also still living (as Jesus described those who were in Abraham's bosom which is one of the places in hell, separated from what we call Hades, where the righteous would go upon death to await the death of the High Priest (note: a place of refuge, see cities of refuge in The Law in the Old Testament)), very much aware of their situation.

Spiritual death, on the other hand, is separation from God. If someone is dead spiritually, they have been separated from God (this is driven home by the wording used to described what Christ's DBR accomplished, a "reconciling" of the world, which means to restore friendly relations between).

God told Adam that he was not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (hereafter called simply, "the Tree", for simplicity's sake), "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." No, the day they ate of it, Adam and Eve didn't die (physically, at least), they didn't cease to exist, they weren't snuffed out. They WERE, however, removed from God's presence. This is why death is separation, and not a cessation of existence.

If we use THAT standard, that "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" means separation from God, reading the Bible becomes easier, and it is easier to understand.

So now that we understand that death is only separation, and not cessation of existence or soul-sleep, let's look at the Biblical claim that the wicked receive eternal punishment, while the righteous receive eternal life. The punishment here is eternal separation from God, death.

The alternative is eternal life, life meaning an association or union (to God).

So no, I may not be inspired, nor do I claim to be, but I am only putting forth what the Bible says.

I let the Bible speak for itself, rather than relying on man's interpretation.

:first:

 

[glorydaz]

You guys just don't understand simple and clear statements for some reason.

It is so weird.

:rotfl:

 

[Rosenritter]

I'm simply following what scripture says, which describes a different definition of "life," which you seem to have confused with something else

We are currently alive, here on this earth. We have life in our bodies.

Good start. Let's use that as a definition for alive.

When we die, however, we are both dead and alive. Our bodies, which are part of us, are dead, yet we are still alive, because we are more than just our bodies. Our soul/spirit is alive, yet our body is dead.

That would be false and obviously contradictory.

Death is just separation.

May I suggest that such a phrase be abandoned? It's worthless for distinction of communication. If you meant "separation from life" or "separation from existence" we would have agreement, but I suspect that you mean "separation from one plane of existence into another." Let's avoid non-biblical phrases that contain double meanings. Can we be agreed on this one thing at least?

Physical death is separation of our body and soul/spirit. So, in a sense, those who are in hell currently (and they are indeed in hell, not in "soul-sleep") are dead, as they are physically dead, But they are also still living (as Jesus described those who were in Abraham's bosom which is one of the places in hell, separated from what we call Hades, where the righteous would go upon death to await the death of the High Priest (note: a place of refuge, see cities of refuge in The Law in the Old Testament)), very much aware of their situation.

If you separate the spirit from the body then neither portion is able to function, any more than if you separate the electricity from your computer that it will continue "live" without its physical form.

Jesus instruct anyone that the dead are currently alive in any form, any more than he could be construed as advocating polygamy ("A certain man was to marry ten virgins") or cannibalism ("you must eat of my flesh and drink of my blood."). Parables are well known for their use of fictitious backdrops, and the identity of characters (Abraham, Judah, and the gentile) leave little room for supposing that it is a "real story" sandwiched between parables.

If there is any question as to whether the elements of a parable are actual or fictional, you should rule in the favor of what is already supported by scripture. That is already defined very clearly, the dead are dead, in darkness, in silence, without knowledge, or emotion, and all of the dead (the poor, the rich, the wicked, the infant) are described as being at peace and at rest.

Spiritual death, on the other hand, is separation from God. If someone is dead spiritually, they have been separated from God (this is driven home by the wording used to described what Christ's DBR accomplished, a "reconciling" of the world, which means to restore friendly relations between).

You won't find "spiritual death" in the bible. It's a made up term by people who try to propagate "the dead are really alive." You might find "death" used in the sense of analogy, such as pointing to a fate ending in death.. but the bible doesn't use that term.

God told Adam that he was not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (hereafter called simply, "the Tree", for simplicity's sake), "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die." No, the day they ate of it, Adam and Eve didn't die (physically, at least), they didn't cease to exist, they weren't snuffed out. They WERE, however, removed from God's presence. This is why death is separation, and not a cessation of existence.

You had the scripture quote essentially correct... but you read it as if it said something else. "In the day you eat of it thou shalt surely die" means that the decree of death goes into effect on that day (the surely part) rather than the fulfillment of the sentence of death. There's at least two other Old Testament instances where similar language is used and it is obvious that the speakers had no intention that the actual fulfillment be completed that day.

For example, see King Saul in 1 Samuel 18:21 "thou shalt this day be my son in law in one of the twain" or King Solomon in 1 Kings 2 (verses 37 & 42) "For it shall be, that on the day thou goest out, and passest over the brook Kirdon, that shalt know for certain that thou shalt surely die" and "Know for a certain, on the day thou goest out, and walkest abroad any whither, that thou shalt surely die?" Those passages are clear enough in their expectations to demonstrate the proper application of the grammar.

In other words, there's no justification for reading Genesis as any differently as if Adam had to "die twice" to make the scripture sensible. We could explain more with English grammar (which recognizes the difference) but the example of those kings should be sufficient to prove the application also exists in the Hebrew.

If we use THAT standard, that "for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die" means separation from God, reading the Bible becomes easier, and it is easier to understand.

It would be a wrong standard fueled by 1) a misunderstanding of grammar and 2) likely motivated by an attempt to redefine death as life.

So now that we understand that death is only separation, and not cessation of existence or soul-sleep, let's look at the Biblical claim that the wicked receive eternal punishment, while the righteous receive eternal life. The punishment here is eternal separation from God, death.

The alternative is eternal life, life meaning an association or union (to God).

So no, I may not be inspired, nor do I claim to be, but I am only putting forth what the Bible says.

I let the Bible speak for itself, rather than relying on man's interpretation.

I'm afraid that you inserted your own interpretation a couple times already. You pulled the setting of a parable open as if it were literal against multiple literal (non-parable) statements of scripture, and you based your proof of "living while dead" on a misreading of grammar. If you let the bible "speak for itself" it also has examples of how to interpret its own grammar... and its parables.

Job 3:16-19 KJV
(16) Or as an hidden untimely birth I had not been; as infants which never saw light.
(17) There the wicked cease from troubling; and there the weary be at rest.
(18) There the prisoners rest together; they hear not the voice of the oppressor.
(19) The small and great are there; and the servant is free from his master.

2 Peter 2:12 KJV
(12) But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption;

 

[Rosenritter]

Just one more thought:

If you lose some skin cells from your body, or lose a finger or leg, that piece of you was you, but now it is dead, and no longer you. It was separated from you.

That's a good thought. Let's run with that for a moment. Let's not stop at a few skin cells, let's chop off an entire leg. So that leg might even kick and bleed and convulse for a few minutes but does it continue to live? It withers and dies and perishes. It's no longer you and it rots or decays into dust. No one points to that leg years from now and says "It didn't die, it was just separated?"

 

[Rosenritter]

They will go to a life of eternal condemnation. You know the scriptures where Jesus calls living humans 'dead'? It is kind of like that, living but dead.

You mean by analogy?

They are raised immortal. So how can their immortal bodies die?
Death will be thrown in the Lake of Fire.

You just assumed your premise in attempt to prove your premise. No, humans are not raised immortal, and you'd have to rewrite a few verses to even have an entry point for such a claim. Regardless, we are told that fire will destroy even the devil down to ashes so that he will be no more. How would you expect a mere human to survive any better?

I have listened intently to other people's argument on this topic, and I have not been convinced that the wicked dead will not raise immortal too but to a suffering existence in the lake of fire.

Aside from a wealth of problem passages that you would face ... what would be the point? Seriously, attempt to answer this question. Instead of the wicked perishing and being no more (as the scripture says) you would be preserving the wicked so they would be for ever more. Is this for their benefit (so that they might be redeemed?) Or for someone else's benefit (perhaps torturing the wicked keeps the righteous in enough fear to keep them loyal?)

As I was trying to get you to see before was that the wicked wake to everlasting contempt, and that waking is living.

Death and contempt is the opposite of everlasting life and glory, Perhaps address the "what would be the point?" question?

 

[Rosenritter]

He's a champion of the Clavinists on top.

Also a champion "never ending torment in hell" guy as well...

Do you believe that they are risen from the dead, changed into new bodies, and then, as those immortal bodies (not their first, mortal body; their new body), they are then killed?

No (that's closer to what GT says though.) Rather, the righteous would be raised immortal, the rest of the dead would be raised in normal bodies. We have plenty of examples that show that people can be risen from the dead without immortality.

For example, Lazarus rose from the dead, Tabitha rose from the dead, the widow's son by Elijah, the guy that fell asleep in the rafters by Paul, and so on and so forth. All of these were raised alive but are still subject to death.

Restating, the rest of the dead (a specific term which excludes the saints in Christ) are raised alive in the normal sense of the word. Regular life subject to death, not eternal life which is immune to the second death.

I'm not setting a trap. I think that punishment sounds worst of all, to be our new, glorified body, to know that it's immortal and that we will never die because our body cannot die, and then to be killed anyway, to know that you're being killed, in your brand new immortal body, that's all set for eternity; that would be awful. And if that's what the wicked deserve, according to God, then who are we to "repliest against God?" Ro9:20KJV

God has said that the wicked deserve death, "The wages of sin is death" (Romans 3), that the sinner who is converted from the error of his ways is saved from death (James 5:20), and so on and so forth.

That's the consistent message; God doesn't say that the wages of sin is life or that the wages of sin is never ending torment. Torment is an affliction upon the living, not the dead. The living might live in torment because of a fear of death or dying, but death means death as God has defined death in scripture. God defined death as the absence of life and awareness, not a greater awakening.

 

[Rosenritter]

Another question (for those who might ponder) ... if the wicked are currently "alive" right now without the benefit of resurrection (and supposedly being punished before the judgment, fully conscious and aware) then why would they need to be resurrected for the judgment? What would be the point?

"Mr. Smith, we bring you this brief commercial message to interrupt your torment but then after that you may go back to your life in torment?" It's just a formality, you were already sentenced and punished without the benefit of judgment for the last 1500 years anyway... " (what a mixed up nonsensical story!)

 

[way 2 go]

Another question (for those who might ponder) ... if the wicked are currently "alive" right now without the benefit of resurrection (and supposedly being punished before the judgment, fully conscious and aware) then why would they need to be resurrected for the judgment? What would be the point?

"Mr. Smith, we bring you this brief commercial message to interrupt your torment but then after that you may go back to your life in torment?" It's just a formality, you were already sentenced and punished without the benefit of judgment for the last 1500 years anyway... " (what a mixed up nonsensical story!)

for the judgment :duh:

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

 

[Bladerunner]

So, the Calvinist will say that to reject Calvinism's tenets is to, in some measure, miss the gospel. Does this mean that Calvinism's tenets constitute some portion of the gospel, but not all of the gospel? In other words, the gospel is the tenets of Calvinism PLUS something else? And, what, exactly, constitutes that "something else"--that part of the gospel that is not the tenets of Calvinism, and is in addition to them?

Will the Calvinist say that one can be saved who has only believed the part of the gospel that is the tenets of Calvinism, but has not believed the remainder of the gospel?

Will the Calvinist say that one can be saved who has only believed the part of the gospel which is not the part constituted of the tenets of Calvinism, but has not believed the Calvinism part?

I believe it is simpler that that. One can be saved by believing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ (1 cor 15:1-4). To believe in the Gospel ONE has to believe in GOD's WORD. The Bible (KJV) is the WORD of GOD therefore God predestined those who He had foreseen would believe in Him. See it is simple. Believing in the Gospel is believing in the whole WORD of GOD and also believing in Calvinism.

Blade

 

[Rosenritter]

for the judgment :duh:

Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead who were in it, Death and Hades gave up the dead who were in them, and they were judged, each one of them, according to what they had done.
Rev 20:14 Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire.
Rev 20:15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

I always have to wonder what Way is thinking (you're not much for words, Mr. Way) but I think I just now realized what (you thought) your point was. Sorry for the delay...

The dead are raised for the judgment? But according to your belief (if I understand it correctly) the dead have already been judged as guilty and have already been receiving punishment. Besides this, if they were conscious without the resurrection, then why would they need to be raised for judgment? They could be judged (again) in the state they are already in.

So sorry, but that proposed reason doesn't add up. Do you have any other explanations as to why the dead would need to be raised for judgment, if they were already conscious and being punished in a conscious state before and without the resurrection?

BTW @way 2 go, is there a short name (nick name) that I may use? Typing "Way 2 Go" always seems a bit stiff. I take no offense at "Rosen" or "Rose" or even "Rosy" if you need a short form for me.

 

[Idolater]

Another question (for those who might ponder) ... if the wicked are currently "alive" right now without the benefit of resurrection (and supposedly being punished before the judgment, fully conscious and aware) then why would they need to be resurrected for the judgment? What would be the point?

Christ preached to somebody, while His body lay dead in the tomb. They were alive in some way. They'd need to be resurrected for judgment, if earth is the venue where their final judgment occurs. You have to be in the right courtroom to be sentenced. It's a formality but it has to happen, so resurrection it is.

 

[Rosenritter]

Christ preached to somebody, while His body lay dead in the tomb. They were alive in some way. They'd need to be resurrected for judgment, if earth is the venue where their final judgment occurs. You have to be in the right courtroom to be sentenced. It's a formality but it has to happen, so resurrection it is.

Christ didn't preach to anybody while he was in the tomb. Who told you that? I have heard a few people say this before, so might I take a guess at where this confusion has entered in?

1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV
(18) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
(19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
(20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

1. As written, it says that Christ preached unto the spirits in prison by his quickening by the Spirit. Jesus was not quickened by the spirit until his resurrection from the dead. This resurrection from the dead is so important that Paul says that without His resurrection that we have no resurrection and thus no hope, of all men most miserable.

2. As written, there is no mention of any action or duration inside a tomb. There is mention of his being put to death in the flesh, and of his quickening by the spirit. I could understand how you might extend the means of his preaching to include the sum of "once suffered for sins", "being put to death in the flesh", and "but quickened by the spirit" but there is no gospel preached with a partial package. That quickening preaches victory over the fallen angels and the works of the devil, without that resurrection Jesus is declared a powerless fraud and the preaching is of defeat.

3. Just to avoid a misunderstanding tangent, the "somebody" are specified as the spirits which were disobedient in the days of Noah. Peter makes the same reference to the fallen angels in the days of Noah in his second epistle (see 2 Peter 2:4, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eight person...")

Those spirits (angels that sinned) are said to be in prison (hell, chains of darkness) until the judgment. "Preached" (Greek kerusso) also means proclaim or publish (see also usage in Mark 1:45, Mark 7:36, and Revelation 5:2.) I think the error slips in when people see the word "preach" with a different (limited) understanding of the world. It doesn't mean "to stand in a church and preach the gospel."

Mark 1:45 KJV But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city...

Mark 7:36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;

Revelation 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

So if we can set that aside for a moment, I hear your explanation being that the dead must be resurrected to judgment not as a necessity, but as a formality. According to this scenario, the dead are already judged and in mid-punishment without the benefit of trial or sentencing in any sort of courtroom. Even if we were to ignore the inherent injustice in punishing someone before their judgment, there is no need to resurrect the dead for sentencing if they are living (as a ghost?) and coherent to stand trial.

Or in other words, if we assume the dead are currently conscious and being punished, then the resurrection is a meaningless formality (a formality without necessity or meaning.)

 

[Idolater]

Christ didn't preach to anybody while he was in the tomb. Who told you that? I have heard a few people say this before, so might I take a guess at where this confusion has entered in?

1 Peter 3:18-20 KJV
(18) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:
(19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
(20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Good guess.

1. As written, it says that Christ preached unto the spirits in prison by his quickening by the Spirit. Jesus was not quickened by the spirit until his resurrection from the dead. This resurrection from the dead is so important that Paul says that without His resurrection that we have no resurrection and thus no hope, of all men most miserable.

2. As written, there is no mention of any action or duration inside a tomb. There is mention of his being put to death in the flesh, and of his quickening by the spirit. I could understand how you might extend the means of his preaching to include the sum of "once suffered for sins", "being put to death in the flesh", and "but quickened by the spirit" but there is no gospel preached with a partial package. That quickening preaches victory over the fallen angels and the works of the devil, without that resurrection Jesus is declared a powerless fraud and the preaching is of defeat.

3. Just to avoid a misunderstanding tangent, the "somebody" are specified as the spirits which were disobedient in the days of Noah. Peter makes the same reference to the fallen angels in the days of Noah in his second epistle (see 2 Peter 2:4, "For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment; And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eight person...")

Those spirits (angels that sinned) are said to be in prison (hell, chains of darkness) until the judgment. "Preached" (Greek kerusso) also means proclaim or publish (see also usage in Mark 1:45, Mark 7:36, and Revelation 5:2.) I think the error slips in when people see the word "preach" with a different (limited) understanding of the world. It doesn't mean "to stand in a church and preach the gospel."

Mark 1:45 KJV But he went out, and began to publish it much, and to blaze abroad the matter, insomuch that Jesus could no more openly enter into the city...

Mark 7:36 And he charged them that they should tell no man: but the more he charged them, so much the more a great deal they published it;

Revelation 5:2 And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof?

So if we can set that aside for a moment, I hear your explanation being that the dead must be resurrected to judgment not as a necessity, but as a formality. According to this scenario, the dead are already judged and in mid-punishment without the benefit of trial or sentencing in any sort of courtroom. Even if we were to ignore the inherent injustice in punishing someone before their judgment, there is no need to resurrect the dead for sentencing if they are living (as a ghost?) and coherent to stand trial.

Or in other words, if we assume the dead are currently conscious and being punished, then the resurrection is a meaningless formality (a formality without necessity or meaning.)

The text says "the spirits in prison." This tells me that the dead are imprisoned, in a holding cell, not being punished, but awaiting trial. I also understand the passage to mean that they are the ones Christ preached to, whether it is before or after His Resurrection, I do not know, but at some point, He preached to them. This tells me that these souls in particular were given a chance to hear and to believe the Gospel, and thus to be freed from prison. And as to their eventual resurrection being 'a formality,' I already granted it, but I disagree that it's 'without necessity or meaning,' anymore than the parallel I proposed is 'without necessity or meaning.' The prisoner is taken to the right courtroom for sentencing, in our case here the courtroom is the earth, which requires that these souls be resurrected in order to be there for their sentencing.

But really, if you feel quite strongly about this, I can't match your enthusiasm on the topic, and I'll bow out and give you your leave.

 

[Rosenritter]

Good guess.
The text says "the spirits in prison." This tells me that the dead are imprisoned, in a holding cell, not being punished, but awaiting trial.

God is a spirit, and the created angels are called spirits, and fallen angels are a subset of these spirits. Ghosts (apparitions, phantasms, poltergeists) are a manifestation of those rebellious spirits, also called devils.

... but the actual dead (not the demonic impostors) are not called spirits. If you are seeking to discern what Peter means by "spirits in prison" in the context of the days of Noah, using Peter to interpret Peter from another place where he references those which are spirits who were restrained in the days of Noah would seem to be the natural resolution... I don't see how you would be able to offer support for another view.

 

[Idolater]

God is a spirit, and the created angels are called spirits, and fallen angels are a subset of these spirits. Ghosts (apparitions, phantasms, poltergeists) are a manifestation of those rebellious spirits, also called devils.

... but the actual dead (not the demonic impostors) are not called spirits. If you are seeking to discern what Peter means by "spirits in prison" in the context of the days of Noah, using Peter to interpret Peter from another place where he references those which are spirits who were restrained in the days of Noah would seem to be the natural resolution... I don't see how you would be able to offer support for another view.

That's fine. I can see that you're heartily convinced, and I'm not going to try to persuade you otherwise since I can't match your passion for this topic.