One Day Soon.

 Act_24:15  And have hope toward God, which they themselves also allow, that there shall be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and unjust.

2Pe_2:9  The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished

Mat_5:45  That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust

Rev_22:11  He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.

One day, we won't know what day it is, but one day these words will be uttered. I believe it is very soon they will be spoken, and what a day that will be. Mankind may not realize what's happened, but probation is over. The time to accept Christ as your Savior is ended. The time to ask for forgiveness is over. The time to make choices for eternal life are no more.

We ALL know that our probation is over upon our deaths. How do we all know this? Because once you are dead you are no longer able to think, or reason, or know anything at all. Ecc_9:5  For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten

There is no second, third, fourth, fifth chance after death to do anything at all in connection to your eternal life. You don't enter into that eternal life right away either, you are dead, you know nothing. You won't know anything again until you are raised - just or unjust.  

There is a resurrection of the unjust after they've died, and this resurrection is so they can face the second death and this death includes the punishment for their unrepentant sins. They will suffer the punishment and then be blotted completely out of existence to be no more.

One day soon all the living - just and unjust - will live in a time when probation is up and it's not their death which ends the probation. 

Let us seek truth and only truth in God's word. Let us put aside all of mankind's boasting and lies and dig deep into the study of the Bible, and do it prayerfully, asking for wisdom, understanding, guidance by the Holy Spirit.

May we all be among those who will be JUST, through Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior, now and forever! Amen!!!!!!!

*******

A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Unjust (continued)

By J.H. Waggoner

"WHAT SAY THE SCRIPTURES?"

Not one of the "principles" that I have yet seen laid down by the advocates of the non-resurrection theory, on which that theory is made to depend, is so evident as to be beyond dispute; on the contrary, I think they are materially defective. Where a dispute arises in regard to principles, by what shall the principles be tested? Most certainly by the plain and positive testimony of Scripture. But in this case another difficulty arises: the most positive expressions of Scripture are also subjects of dispute, each party claiming that the texts which seem to favor their respective views are positive, and that the texts which the opposing parties respectively claim are not positive, but figurative or irrelevant. And therefore the settlement of the whole question, after all, turns upon a correct exposition of the Scriptures, and not, as has been so often claimed, upon the bearing of a few "principles," so called. 

Entering upon an examination of the Scriptures, I would remark, 

1. It is difficult to show that the texts quoted from the Old Testament to deny the resurrection of the wicked have any reference whatever to the subject of a personal resurrection. But, if it could be shown that they do, it could not yet be proved that they belong to the present time, or that they are not spoken prospectively, in view of a future and utter destruction of the wicked.

2. The texts claimed as positive in favor of the resurrection of the wicked, speak of the future resurrection as the subject of remark, and specify the wicked as one class to be raised; and therefore they must determine the signification of texts which are not equally explicit and unmistakable in their terms. In all cases the definite must determine the indefinite, otherwise questions of evidence could never be settled.

3. The texts quoted as proving they shall not see life, are irrelevant, as the context proves that such texts refer to eternal or immortal life, for which we do not contend in behalf of the wicked. For, if they must be taken without being so qualified by their connection, then the connection is left to prove that the wicked do not now live, and the righteous will not die. And if it be shown that such is the tendency of that claim, the absurdity of the claim will be evident.

Besides these classes of texts, there are some that speak of the resurrection of the just, but do not speak of the resurrection of the unjust. From these it has been inferred that a resurrection of the unjust is not taught in the Scriptures. But that does not follow. Entire silence of the Scriptures on a given subject is overwhelming evidence against it; but the silence of any one text on a certain doctrine is no evidence against it while it is mentioned in another. Otherwise any doctrine could be disproved by merely quoting a sufficient number of texts which make no mention of it, which would be easy to do.

In examining the Scriptures, I will arrange the texts under certain propositions, to give a better view of my objections to the non-resurrection theory; giving, however, as my first serious objection, that, 

I. It denies the gospel doctrine of the forgiveness of sin. This, I think, has been fully proved, and should of itself be sufficient to refute the theory in the minds of all who claim forgiveness in Jesus' name, and recognize the justice of God in justifying the believer. Rom. 3. That I have not misconstrued the teachings of the Scriptures on this subject, is

evident, for Paul says "there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." Rom. 8:1. That I do not misrepresent that theory in saying it denies forgiveness, is evident; for they have the justified pay the same forfeit to the law that the unjustified pay. Where there is no condemnation there is innocence; but the innocent cannot justly be required to pay a forfeit to the law. The law requires obedience of them as of others, but it cannot inflict the penalty upon them as it does upon the condemned, without manifest injustice.

II. It contradicts all those texts which threaten pain and anguish to the sinner. I say it contradicts them, because God is just; and that theory places all these texts in opposition to justice. It is asserted that, 1. Death only is the penalty. 2. Pain or agony is no part of death; therefore, no part of the penalty. 3. To inflict anything outside of, or more than, the penalty, is injustice. The conclusion is evident to all: God would, therefore, be unjust to inflict pain, or agony, or torment, upon the sinner, because these are no part of the "clearly-expressed penalty." If we could find but one text in the Bible clearly expressing the fact that pain or torment would be inflicted, as an infliction (not as a mere attendant upon the threatened infliction), then my proposition is true; and that theory stands condemned.

Rev. 14: 10, 11, says that "if any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup; of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and the smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever; and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image,! and whosoever receiveth the

mark of his name."

The most that can be said to evade the force of this passage is, that the phrase, "forever and ever," is of necessity limited, and does not mean unending duration; and that the passage refers only to a certain class, and not to sinners in general. To which I reply, to the first, It is admitted that the duration expressed is limited; but that does not affect the argument. The proposition requires two things, which are found in the text:

1. A threatening: and, 2. Torment; therefore, the torment is an infliction upon a certain action-it is punishment, or penalty. That it results in death, is admitted; but it is more than "to be dead," it is to "be tormented." It is a painful death-the process of dying (which is embraced in the expression, "shall die,") under tormenting circumstances. And whatever limitation is assumed in regard to the time, it is evident that some time is required; for

torment cannot be inflicted without time; and, in this case, it is "day" and "night." Though the phrase, "forever and ever," is limited, it must convey to every mind the idea of more than a sudden transition from life to a state of death. And to the second, I say that it cannot make any difference whether it refers to all, to a party or even to a single individual, so far as the principle under consideration is concerned. For if the addition of anguish or torment to death were unjust, as the theory avers, then the justice of God would be compromised by inflicting it upon one man, and certainly by its infliction on a class. It must be evident to the reader that this threat can never be executed, and at the same time God be just and Mr. Storrs' "principles" be correct. To say that God will not be strictly just, were to blaspheme; to say the threat will never be executed, were to deny the word of God. Therefore we must set aside Mr. Storrs' reasoning as a fallacy.

I say that to deny the infliction of this threat is to deny the word; for we find in Rev. 16:2, a prophetic record of its fulfillment. When the "seven last plagues" are poured upon a guilty world, the first is poured upon the very characters against whom the threat is pronounced in Rev. 14; 10, 11, as quoted; "There fell a noisome and grievous sore upon the men which had the mark of the beast, and them which worshiped his image." Again, the fourth plague gave the sun power to scorch men with fire; but, that it did not instantly kill them, is evident; for "men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God." And the fifth was poured out on the seat of the beast, "and his kingdom was full of darkness; and they gnawed their tongues for pain." It is impossible that these should be considered mere figures of speech, where no real torment or pain is intended; for in these plagues is "filled up the wrath of God." It is much better to "tremble at his word," than to invent theories to neutralize its force.

But I will now refer to a scripture which exactly agrees with the foregoing, where no figures are used. It is Rom. 2:8, 9. It reads; "But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish." I am well aware of the effort made to put this tribulation in this life, which will be noticed in its proper place. So far as the proposition now under consideration is concerned, it makes no difference when nor where it is fulfilled. If it is fulfilled at all, and there is pain or anguish in the fulfillment of it, then it stamps the non-resurrection theory of penalty as a 

fallacy.

 

Our relation to the judgment of God is a most solemn and important matter, and we cannot be too careful how we reason upon it, or to what conclusions we come in regard to it. If our errors do not result disastrously to ourselves, they may yet prove stumbling-blocks to others, by leading them to presume upon the mercy of God, and to detract from that judgment and justice which is the habitation of his throne. Such, and so dangerous, I think, is the tendency of this non-resurrection theory.

Other texts of like import might be adduced, but the design is to prove the positions taken, not to try to exhaust the proofs thereon. (To be continued…)