For just a
moment, because for it to be more than a moment it may be too much for some to
bear… contemplate the fact of your deceased loved one is NOT in heaven but in a
place of eternal torment.
Did you
imagine it? Did you want to stop imagining it? Did your mind automatically
discard the very idea of your loved one suffering now that they are no longer
here on our sin-inflicted, disease ridden, sickness and accident filled world? We tend to believe people suffer enough in
life here on earth and we long to believe the people who die have passed on to
a better place. Even the most wicked, sin-embracing, sin-loving, God hating,
God discarding person somehow seems to make it to a better place according to
those who have affection for that person.
Why have I
brought this up? Why did I want you to imagine your beloved absent friend,
loved one, family member in torment?
Because there is a very good chance, in fact more of a chance that
they'll eventually enter that supposed eternal torment than they'll enter
heaven.
FEW there
be that find it. (Matthew 7:14)
I know, I
know! You want me to shut up, but I can't. Rest assured, I DON'T believe your
loved ones are in eternal torment right now. I believe (Biblically based) that
they are unconscious, sleeping if you will- suspended in time protected and
reserved by God until Jesus returns.
FEW there
be that find it. (Matthew 7:14)
See, right
there we are told the odds of a person aren't very good for obtaining eternal
peace in heaven and yet ask the majority of people where their dead loved
one(s) is(are) right now and they'll tell you - in heaven.
Why do
they tell you that? Because to believe they are not in heaven means believing
they are in eternal torment, or simply non-existent, or lost in some cycle of
rebirth no one is ever conscious of in reality- in either an animal or another
person.
It's
factual that most will say their dead loved one is alive in heaven. This
unproven supposition (even Scripturally) gives a sense of extremely false and
deceptive hope to people, as a way of coping with the loss they feel making it
somehow better. This belief soothes the sorrow stricken person with a measure
of peace, sometimes just enough to keep a person from ruining their own lives
with grief. Better to believe in fantasy than reality. Better not to ask
ourselves if our loved one truly is one of the few among the many. Much better
to not believe there even exists a heavenly lottery where most lose and only a
few win. As long as we hold fast to our delusions we have hope for ourselves,
truthfully isn't that why we hold onto the falsehood and refuse to delve into
deep Bible study over it?
The
Biblical truth is our first death (for there are claimed to be two of them for
some in the Bible), our first death is a simple passing into a death sleep
while our breath and our unconscious essence of who we are returns to God to
await the day of resurrection- some to life, and some to the second death.
Yes,
that's scriptural, I did NOT make it up on my own.
And why do
we have such trouble with believing our first death is a sleep with unconscious
awareness? Because we do NOT want to
believe we actually cease to live in full awareness after death claims us. We
want to believe death here and now means not only an end to the suffering we do
here and now, but a reward of joy and peace, and painlessness is now ours. We
want to be rewarded for our life of suffering. We want our loved ones rewarded,
especially those whose deaths are horrific. They, or we, go through something
so incomprehensible awful that our solace is the joy they must now have, and
the joy we have to look forward to.
Don't get
me wrong, those who are God's will have that joy to look forward to, that great
reward we can't even fully imagine, an eternal life with our God, with our
Savior.
I'm just
hoping one single person who reads this may see their way through the deception
that began in the Garden of Eden with the serpent saying to Eve- "You
surely won't die…"
If most
people truly believe they live immediately after death- they 'aren't surely
dying', are they? They've just jumped into another- much better way of
living.
Lies from
the father of lies.
May God
help us find truth in God's word and live by the truth so we are not caught up
in Satan's lies. And if you think believing in this lie is harmless because in
every other way you are living for Christ… remember… many are going to think
they are living for Christ only to find out they've been deceived. No lie of
Satan's is harmless and to be easily dismissed as being inconsequential.
Eve
believed Satan's lies and they were far from harmless.
God help
us all!
Click on
the following link if you want to know Biblically what death is…
(Excerpt
Continued…)
There are
two kinds of sorrow for sin: a “godly sorrow,” and a “sorrow of the world.” 2
Cor. 7:10.
2Co
7:10 For godly sorrow worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented
of: but the sorrow of the world worketh death.
The first
is that of the penitent, sorrowing that he has violated a holy law and grieved
a holy God. The other is that of the worldling, sorry that he is detected in
crime, or in danger of punishment. No one doubts that the sorrow of the
God-fearing penitent is deepest; that his remorse is the keenest. Yet the
nearer he is to God, the finer his sensibilities, and the deeper his hatred of
sin, the stronger will be his remorse for his sin. Therefore, if this be part
of the penalty of the law, it is evident that this part is inflicted more
severely on the penitent than on the impenitent and incorrigible.
Again,
Paul speaks of those whose conscience is seared with a hot iron. 1 Tim. 4:2.
1Ti
4:2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot
iron
That is,
they run to such lengths in sin that their sensibilities are blunted, and they
feel little or no remorse of conscience.
Now, both
reason and revelation teach us that the punishment must be proportioned to the
guilt; but if remorse of conscience be a penalty, it is executed by inverse
proportion; that is, the punishment decreases according to the increase of
crime. But we are led to inquire, Where did Dr. Barnes (or any other person)
learn that remorse of conscience is a part of the penalty of the law? Does the
Bible say so?
It does
not; there is nothing in the Bible which gives the least sanction to such an
idea. Why, then, do men say so? Where did they get authority for such a
declaration? As it is the duty and sole prerogative of the governor to reveal
his law, so he alone can define the penalty. This He has done in his word: “The
wages of sin is death.” Any effort to evade this plain truth, or to make it
anything but a plain truth, involves difficulties and contradictions. For it
will not obviate the difficulty to spiritualize the term death, so as to make
it embrace remorse of conscience; for if that be included in death, whatever
will remove the remorse will remove so much of the penalty, or of death, and
bring a proportionate degree of life. But sin does this, as the apostle shows;
therefore, according to that theory, sin removes a portion of its own penalty,
which is absurd. Dr. Barnes asserts that Christ did not suffer the penalty of
the law, but something substituted for the penalty. There is no cause for such
The
Atonement - 66
a
declaration, except it be found, as before said, in the necessities of a theory. In the teachings of
the Bible there is no uncertainty in this matter. They plainly inform us that
“the wages of sin is death;” and that “Christ died for our sins.” Rom. 6:23; 1
Cor. 15:3.
Rom
6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life
through Jesus Christ our Lord.
1Co
15:3 For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received,
how that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures
As sin is
the transgression of the law, death, the wages of sin, is its penalty; and as
Christ died for our sin, the penalty was laid upon him for our sake.
Now that “Christ died” is not only plainly
declared in the Scriptures, but it is a fundamental truth in the gospel system;
for it is easy to show that, if Christ did not die, there can be no atonement
and no redemption.
It appears
evident, then, that those who assert that Christ did not suffer the penalty of
the law, do not so assert because the fact is not revealed in the Bible, but,
as before intimated, because of certain difficulties supposed to lie in the way
of that fact. These difficulties are concerning the nature of the penalty,
death. It is assumed that death, the penalty of transgression, is three-fold in
its nature, consisting of temporal, spiritual, and eternal death. If this
assumption were true, we should at once give up the Atonement as a thing
impossible. Yet it has been advanced by men of eminence, and incorporated into
works recognized as standard. Let us examine it.
1. The
death of man is temporal only by reason of a resurrection. But the resurrection
belongs to the work of Christ, and as his work was not necessary or a subject
of promise till after the transgression, it cannot have any place in the
announcement of the penalty. When death was threatened to Adam, it was not said
that he should die temporally, spiritually, and eternally; nor that he should
die a first or second death; nor the death that never dies; but that he should
surely die. It was death—simply death. Had not a promise been given afterward,
of “the seed” to bruise the serpent’s head, it would necessarily have been
eternal death. But Christ, introducing a resurrection for Adam and his race,
causes it to be temporal. But since this time, this death, temporal, has not
been the penalty for personal transgression. This is evident for two reasons:
(1) Infants die who never have transgressed; and (2) In the Judgment we stand
to answer for our deeds, and the second death is inflicted for
- 67 - J.
H. Waggoner
personal
sin. But on those who are holy, “the second death hath no power;” the penalty
does not reach them.
So it
appears the death we now die is occasioned by Adam’s transgression, and is
rendered temporal by the second Adam, and comes indiscriminately upon all
classes and ages, thus precluding the idea that it is now a penalty, except as
connected with that first transgression, in which we are involved only by
representation.
2.
Spiritual death cannot be a penalty at all. A penalty is an infliction to meet
the ends of justice. But spiritual death is a state of sin, or absence of
holiness; and to say that God inflicts unholiness upon man is not only absurd,
but monstrous. That is confounding the crime with its punishment. God does not
make man wicked or sinful as an infliction; but man makes himself wicked by his
own actions, and God punishes him with death for his wickedness. Again, there
will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust; for as in
Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. Now if the penalty
upon Adam included spiritual death, the resurrection through the second Adam
would be to spiritual life, or holiness; and if all were restored to spiritual
life through Christ, there would be none to fall under the second death, for it
falls not on the “blessed and holy.” The text above quoted, 1Cor.15:22, “For as
in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,” has been “spiritualized”
so much that it has been fairly conceded to the Universalists by many who call
themselves orthodox. But it does not at all favor Universalism unless it is
perverted, and made to conflict with other scriptures. Jesus says, all that are
in the graves shall hear the voice of the Son of man, and come forth; they that
have done good to the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil to the
resurrection of damnation. The text in question (1 Cor. 15:22) says no more
than this, that all that have died shall have a resurrection; but if some are
unjust, and have a resurrection to damnation, that affords no help to
Universalism. But if death here means spiritual death (as we say it does not),
then the Universalists must have the truth; for to be made alive from spiritual
death is to be made spiritually alive, which is none other than a state of
holiness. This conflicts with the words of
The
Atonement - 68
Christ
just quoted, of a resurrection to damnation. Death is simply the absence of
life; all die and go into the grave, and all are raised again from the grave,
without respect to their character or condition. There will be a resurrection
of the just and of the unjust; one class to eternal life, the other to the
second death. The death of Adam became temporal by reason of a resurrection, so
we may say that the infliction for personal sins, the second death, is eternal,
because no resurrection will succeed it.
Thus, it
appears plain that from the beginning death was the penalty of the law of God,
circumstances determining the duration of it. This view, which is in strict
harmony with the Bible, really removes all difficulty in regard to Christ
having suffered the penalty due to sin.
But still
another difficulty is presented to us by giving an extraordinary definition to
death; it is said to mean eternal misery. But on examination of this, the
difficulty will be entirely on the side of those who present it. If, however,
the definition is correct, there is an insurmountable difficulty, involving the
whole doctrine of the atonement, and making it utterly impossible for God to be
just, and also the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus.
First,
then, if the signification of death is “eternal misery,” Christ never died at
all; and then all the scriptures that say he died are untrue; and thus the
atonement would be proved impossible, and further consideration of it would be
useless. But admitting the Scripture testimony, that the wages of sin is death,
and that Christ died for sin, and we have the scriptural view of the term
death, utterly forbidding such an unnatural and forced construction of a plain
declaration.
Secondly.
If the correct definition of death is eternal misery, the relative terms, first
and second, as applied to death before and after the resurrection, are used
absurdly. For how can there be a first and second eternal misery?
Sin
entered into the world, and death by sin; and death passed upon all men. But
the very fact that man may be resurrected, released from death, as the
Scriptures teach, clearly proves that the Scripture use of the term death is
entirely different from the “theological use,” as given above.
- 69 - J.
H. Waggoner
And,
thirdly, If death means eternal misery, then that is the penalty of the law;
but Christ did not suffer it, and the redeemed will not suffer it, so it
follows that justice is never vindicated by the infliction of the penalty,
either upon them or a substitute; and thus justice is suspended, not satisfied;
and Christ’s death (if it could with any reason be called so) is not truly
vicarious.
As before
considered, justice demands the infliction of the penalty of a just law; and as
God is unchangeable and infinitely just, the penalty will surely be inflicted
upon the transgressor or his substitute. But the above view makes it
impossible. According to that, mercy does not harmonize with justice, but
supersedes it, and God’s justice is not manifest in justifying the believer.
The sum of the matter is this: that if the penalty be eternal misery, then all
that have sinned must suffer it, and be eternally miserable, or else the
demands of the law are never honored. But the first would result in universal
damnation, and the other would degrade the Government of God, and contradict
both reason and the Scriptures. This definition of death has been adopted of
necessity to conform to the popular idea of the inherent immortality of man;
yet it involves a contradiction in those who hold it. For it is claimed that
the wicked are immortal and cannot cease to exist, and therefore the death
threatened in the Scriptures is something besides cessation of existence,
namely, misery.
But
immortality signifies exemption from death; and if the Scriptural meaning of
death is misery, and the wicked are immortal, or exempt from death, they are,
of course, exempt from misery! The advocates of this theory do not mean to be
Universalists, but their position necessarily leads to that result. It was well
said by that great Christian philosopher, John Locke, that “it seems a strange
way of understanding law, which requires the plainest and most direct terms,
that by death should be meant eternal life in misery.” Life and death are
opposites; the first is promised to the justified, the second is threatened and
inflicted upon the unjust. But life and misery are not opposites; misery is a
condition of life. In everything but “theology” such a perversion of language
would not be tolerated, as to make eternal misery and death, or even misery and
death, synonymous. Were I to report that a man was dead because I
The
Atonement - 70
knew him
to be suffering in much misery, it would be looked upon as trifling—solemn
mockery. With a cessation of life every condition of life must cease.
(To be
continued)
(Excerpt
from-) THE ATONEMENT PART SECOND:
THE
ATONEMENT AS REVEALED IN THE BIBLE
(1884)
BY ELDER J. H. WAGGONER
