Reserved For the Day of Judgment.

 *******

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. 

*******

(EXCERPT)

The unjust will be resurrected, though some object to this truth. The article we've been studying is vindicating the truth of the resurrection of the unjust- scripturally, logically. 

A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Unjust

By J.H. Waggoner CONTINUED HERE…

"Every soul of man" is a very comprehensive expression; Jews and Gentiles are both included in it-not by implication, but-by direct and express statement. Both are referred to in verses 11-15, and verse 16 is directly related thereto. This speaks of "the day when God

shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ." Not of one generation of men-but of men; all to whom he has previously referred in the same argument; every soul of man, both Jews and Gentiles; and here I note another point in the argument. 

4. Jesus Christ will be judge in that day. This is strongly confirmatory of the view that this is a future judgment-a day appointed in the which he will judge, as in Acts 17:31, when he who is now the Advocate will take judgment into his hands. The Saviour himself, in John 5:26-29, closely connected his "authority to execute judgment" with the resurrection of evil-doers. Woe to the soul that is  unreconciled to God in that day, when "the wrath of the Lamb" is manifested-the wrath of that Lamb of God that has long been pleading the merits of his own blood in behalf of the very ones on whom he will take vengeance in the day of

wrath. These statements of the Saviour and his apostles give us a clear understanding of Job 21:30, concerning which there has been much needless dispute. 

Eld. Curry, in his discussion with Eld. Grant, after criticising this text gave the following rendering: "The wicked is kept in the day of calamity, and brought on with funeral pomp in the day of death." This rendering is certainly forbidden both by the context and by the harmony of the Scriptures. 

Job 21 verses- 19 and 20 say, "God layeth up his iniquity for his children; he rewardeth him, and he shall know it; his eyes shall see his destruction, and he shall drink of the wrath of the Almighty." That this does not refer to the event of natural death, is evident from verse 23: "One dieth in his full strength, being wholly at ease and quiet." "Tribulation and anguish" have not yet been his portion. But they shall be, in that "the wicked is reserved to the day of destruction; they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath." This agrees with Peter, who says the unjust are reserved to the day of judgment to be punished; and he further says that that day of judgment is that day in the which the heavens and earth shall be melted by fire. "And they shall be brought forth to the day of wrath." Paul shows that this

day of wrath is the day of judgment, in which Jesus Christ shall judge the secrets of men-even every soul of man that doeth evil, Jew and Gentile. Brought forth from whence? Not brought forth to burial; but they who die at ease, and in peace, and in full strength, are brought forth to the day of wrath, and to that day they are "reserved," and Peter says "to be punished." Of course they are brought forth from the grave-from death; for this is the statement of Job: 1. He dies in ease and quiet. 2. He is reserved to the day of destruction. 3. He shall be brought forth to the day of wrath. And that day is a definite, appointed day, clearly marked in the Scriptures. Job 21 is, beyond all contradiction, describing the awful destiny of the wicked the wrath that awaits him. But what is his terrible destiny, according to the criticism and rendering of the opposer of the resurrection of evil-doers? It is this:

He shall be kept in the day of calamity, die in ease and quiet, and at last have a splendid funeral! The subject is altogether too solemn and important to admit of criticisms and "renderings" which are a mere burlesque of the threatenings of God's wrath upon evil-doers. The same idea presented by Job is again brought to view in Isa. 24:21, 22: "And it shall come to pass in that day that the Lord shall punish the host of the high ones that are on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth. And they shall be gathered together as prisoners are gathered together in the pit; and shall be shut up in the prison; and after many days they shall be visited." Peter speaks also of the "spirits in prison," to whom the Lord by his Spirit preached in the days of Noah. They were not in prison in Noah's day, in the time when they were preached unto; but they are now in prison. This determines what Isaiah meant by the prison in which they shall be shut up "many days;" there they await the day of

wrath, when they shall be visited, brought forth to be punished. Our examination thus far aids us in determining (if any such aid is needed) the meaning of Jude 14, 15. The Lord, when he comes to execute judgment, will convince all of their ungodly deeds, and of all

their hard speeches which they have spoken against him. This will be fulfilled when he judges the secrets of men-"of every soul of man." To convince all the ungodly of their ungodly deeds and words, they must be in a state or condition to be convinced, which they will be when they are brought forth from their prison to the day of wrath. But another fact is stated by Jude which has a most important bearing on this question. He affirms that "the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day." Verse 6. This language is unmistakable in its import, and cannot possibly be evaded, or made to refer to anything but a future judgment. Peter said, "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." 2 Peter 2:4. They were not spared-they were cast down; but they are reserved unto judgment, the judgment of the great day. This is "the day of judgment" unto which the unjust are reserved to be punished. The day is the same; there is but one great day of wrath or judgment; and the terms used are the same concerning the fallen angels and unjust men. Both are reserved to be punished in that day. To that day and its events Paul refers in 1 Cor. 6:2, 3: "Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? . . . Know ye not that we shall judge angels?" And this judgment is contrasted with judgments pertaining to "this life," showing it to be that future and eternal judgment unto which both the angels and unjust men are reserved. Paul says we shall judge "the world;" that is, the world of the ungodly. Not a particular class of the world, but the world, and as this is not in "this life," it must be beyond the judgment and resurrection or translation of the saints, who are raised or translated one thousand years before the resurrection of the unjust. It is impossible to show that any one part or generation of "the world" have a special or exclusive interest in "the judgment of the great day;" while every scripture evidence shows that all classes and ages of the unjust, both of men and angels, are reserved unto the day of judgment-the great day-to be punished. 

Much more might be produced on this point, but I do not deem it necessary. Enough evidence has been given from the word of God, it seems to me, to convince every one of the fallacy of the expositions and conclusions of those who, to avoid the truth of the resurrection of the wicked, endeavor also to disprove a general judgment. I leave it, to examine another point. 

TO BE CONTINUED

They With Us!

 

Resurrection - Continuing Study.

 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. 

*******

(EXCERPT)

The unjust will be resurrected, though some object to this truth. The article we've been studying is vindicating the truth of the resurrection of the unjust- scripturally, logically. 

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

By J.H. Waggoner

"WHAT SAY THE SCRIPTURES?" 

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…

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.

(Objections to the non-resurrection theory---)

(CONTINUED)

And now, inasmuch as the apostles spoke by the same Spirit which was conferred upon them by the Lord Jesus, and which is also called the Spirit of Christ, when they spoke of "the day of judgment," they must have meant exactly what he meant when he spoke of "the day of judgment." ((The apostles meant what Jesus meant when they too spoke of a day of judgment in their inspired words to us.))

And here let it be remarked, that this is not an arbitrary condition by which a forced construction is put upon his language to make it harmonize with that of the apostles, but, to the contrary, his language perfectly agrees with theirs, and must be forced to make it  refer to something beside that which by them is defined to be "the day of judgment." ((Those wishing to change the meanings of God's word in the Bible have to force it to fit their lies.)) 

Thus in Matt. 10:15, referring to the city which should reject him, he said, "It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment than for that city." Also in chapter 11:23, 24, he upbraids Capernaum, with threatening, and says, "It shall be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment than for thee."

((Note- IN the DAY of judgment - both texts))

On this text, Eld. Storrs remarks:

"Now observe, the day of judgment here spoken of is the day of Capernaum's visitation for its disregard of Jesus' works. Sodom was judged, overthrown, and did not "remain until this day' in which Christ spoke; therefore judgment had been executed upon that city. Now what? The day of Capernaum's judgment was at hand, and it should be more intolerable than the infliction on Sodom." Life from the Dead, p. 56.

((It will be more tolerable… in the DAY of JUDGMENT, than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah. We KNOW that Sodom and Gomorrah suffered the fate of being wiped out of existence- that's factual. Fire rained down on the city destroying everyone and everything. ON -- future tense -- the DAY of JUDGMENT the city spoken of in those texts is going to suffer MORE than Sodom and Gomorrah did. NO cities have suffered the raining down of fire since Sodom and Gomorrah, more so than they did. No city with ALL its inhabitants has had their entire population irradicated from a DAY of JUDGMENT by God. To go further than total annihilation would mean what? The suffering more extreme, longer lasting, permanent for all with no hope of rising from the dead when Christ returns because He will have returned! This is what it means by Sodom and Gomorrah having it MORE tolerable, it has to be to make any sense at all.))

Now look at the text, and the facts in the case, and judge whether such remarks are just. Is it a fact that any judgment yet inflicted on Capernaum was more intolerable than that inflicted on Sodom? What special visitation came upon her, exceeding that which came upon Sodom? None. 

Her, inhabitants died as other generations had; and the city itself passed away as many others had before, and have since. 

Evidently the Saviour's prediction REMAINS TO BE FULFILLED. But again, the Saviour does not say it shall be more intolerable for Capernaum in the day of her judgment than it was for Sodom in the day of hers. This is the construction put upon the text in the extract quoted. But the words of Jesus throw Sodom forward into the judgment, thus: "It shall be more tolerable for Sodom in the day of judgment." The day of judgment is never used in the Scriptures but in such manner as to indicate exactly what Peter affirms it to be, viz., THE FUTURE DAY OF RETRIBUTION. 

We must allow the words of Christ and his apostles to harmonize, for so they do in fact; and the natural construction of the Saviour's language does place the day of judgment in the future, as do the words of the apostles, and also brings Sodom into that day. 

Another consideration is here involved, which should not be lost sight of. If the day of judgment for that generation is in the past, and that infliction was their final punishment it follows that inasmuch as Lot was delivered from the terrors of that day, he has had his final deliverance. For on what principle is Lot made a subject of two judgments more than the other men of his age? 

But if it be affirmed that there is a future, final deliverance for Lot, as all will affirm, can that fact be more clearly proved by the Scriptures than can the relative fact that the wicked are "reserved" to the day of judgment to be punished? The events of that day were either final, or they were not. If they were final, then Lot has had his reward; if they were not, then our opponents are wrong in their theory and conclusions. 

And so of Noah, and of all others who have escaped what we denominate temporal or special judgments. If the judgments from which they were delivered were not temporal or special, but final, as our opponents affirm, then Noah, Lot, etc, have had deliverance from the final judgments of their respective ages, and therefore cannot look for a deliverance in the future, not pertaining to the judgments assigned to their ages. This conclusion is unavoidable, and I see no possible way for the opposers of the resurrection of the wicked to escape its  consequences.

To Be Continued….

You'll Be Judged.

 When do you think you will be judged? When is your judgment day? Do we all have the same judgment day? 

When you die you no longer have an opportunity to accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. At that point your eternal life has been decided but you will not receive the actual sentence based on that decision until our Savior returns for us. The outcome of the judgment made isn't immediate. The Bible tells us clearly that we do not reunite with our Savior (if we've died in Christ) until He returns and calls us from our graves to meet Him in the air. (1 Thess. 4:16) Those who die not in Christ remain in their graves then they are raised only to die yet again, this time permanently. 

Joh 5:28  Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 

Joh 5:29  And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. 

There is a resurrection of damnation, this is Biblical fact.

For those alive when Christ returns, those who belong to Christ will rise to meet Him in the air- their bodies changed to immortal, to incorruptible. For those who don't belong to Christ when He returns they will die.

We have to comprehend that there are two choices life with Christ, or death without Christ.

You will have your judgment day- those living when Christ returns will be judged before then, they will be sealed as His or marked as belonging to the beast. Truth be told- we don't know when our eternal life is judged because we don't know when we will die and we don't know the date of Christ's return. What we do know is… we are judged. I want Christ as my advocate when my time of judgment comes, I want to be found in Him and He in me!

All by the mercy and grace of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! Now and forever! AMEN!!!!!!

*******

(EXCERPT)

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

By J.H. Waggoner

"WHAT SAY THE SCRIPTURES?" (Continued)

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…

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.

(Objections to the non-resurrection theory---)

III. It ignores a "day of judgment" in which actions shall be weighed and punishment awarded.

That this proposition is true in regard to that theory, cannot be denied; for, according to that view, every person is fully punished when he is dead. Every day is a day of judgment and execution. That this is not a scriptural view I now offer proof.

Acts 17:31: "Because he hath appointed a day in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead."

I am firmly of the belief, in reference to the judgment and destiny of the wicked, that the day of judgment is a definite, appointed time, and succeeds "the day of salvation." Our Saviour made known his mission by reading from the prophet, as recorded in Luke 4:16-21: "And he came to Nazareth, where he had been been brought up; and, as his custom was, he went into the synagogue on the Sabbath-day, and stood up for to read. And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath

anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the broken-hearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, to preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him. And he began to say unto them, This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears." By turning to Isa. 61, from which the Saviour read, we find that verse 3 reads thus: "To proclaim the acceptable year of theLord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn." Why did the Saviour stop his reading so abruptly, without reading the sentence following, so closely connected with that which he read? Evidently because no more was that day fulfilled than he read. "The acceptable year of the

Lord" was then existing; "the day of vengeance" was a future time, and could not then be proclaimed. So the apostles preached. Paul quoted from another part of Isaiah's prophecy respecting this time, and added, "Behold, now is the accepted time; behold, now is the day of salvation." 2 Cor. 6:2. The accepted time, or acceptable year of the Lord, and day of salvation, are evidently the same. Not a period of definite, or given, length; not a literal day or year; for these terms, as well as "hour" in Rev. 14:7, and other places, are used to denote periods without regard to length. The "day of salvation" has now continued over one thousand eight hundred years. Speaking of this day, Paul said it is "now;" but referring to

the judgment day he said it was a day appointed in the which he will judge-in the future. And so again, in Acts 24:25: Felix trembled when Paul reasoned of "judgment to come." He could not have trembled to hear it announced that he would not be raised from the dead; for he had never believed in a resurrection. And it is hard to believe that he would tremble that Paul should tell him he would die; for he had always known that. Paul must certainly have reasoned of a future judgment-the day of judgment-to make this heathen king tremble. In the remarks of those who deny the resurrection of the unjust, on the day of judgment, as well as in their expositions of particular texts, they harmonize with the Universalists. Every day is the execution of judgment to somebody. Besides this, there have been several particular days of judgment. But the Scriptures do not so speak. In Acts 17:31, Paul says God has appointed a day in the which he will judge. He says "a day," because there are other days beside that; but he, and all other Bible writers, say "THE day of judgment," because there is but one day of that kind. When "a day" is appointed for judgment, it then becomes "the day"-the only day set apart for that purpose. Let this be borne in mind as we

examine the texts. The testimony of Peter is so clear and decisive on this point as to leave no room for doubt. He says, "The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptation, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished." 2 Pet. ii, 9. 

On this Eld. Storrs remarks: 

"We may be sure Peter had reference only to the living wicked, who should no more escape the judgment of death than the old world or Sodom did. God would reserve, hold, or keep them to that judgment, and they 'shall be brought to the grave and remain in the tomb,' after the 'ensample' Peter spoke of." Life from the Dead, p. 69.

This is not according to the expression of this and other texts, and cannot be the truth concerning these Scriptures. Peter does not merely say they shall be held to judgment, to death, but they shall be reserved "unto the day of judgment." The whole question turns on this: whether Peter refers to indefinite times, as the day of each man's death, or to a definite future time, when all the unjust shall be punished. The latter appears to be true, from the reading of the text, and is shown to be certainly true by chap. 3 of this same letter; for, fortunately, he has clearly set forth in the latter chapter what he means by the day of judgment. In chap. 3:7, he says; "The heavens and the earth which are now, by the same

word are kept in store, reserved unto fire, against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men." Here a fact is stated concerning the heavens and the earth in the very same terms that are used concerning the unjust, in chap. 2:9.

The earth is reserved unto fire, and the unjust are reserved to be punished, and both alike unto the day of  judgment; and to make it sure beyond all dispute, the day of judgment, against which the heavens and the earth are reserved unto fire, is also declared to be the

day of perdition of ungodly men. But again, he not only defines "the day of judgment" to be that day in the which the heavens and the earth shall be dissolved with fire, or melted with

fervent heat, but he proceeds to give a reason why that day is delayed, which would not be required if Mr. Storrs' view were correct; for, according to that view, there is no delay; that day is every day whenever an unjust man dies! In giving this reason Peter makes "the day of the Lord" to coincide with "the day of judgment." And the whole is introduced by the subject of the second advent, or rather, these remarks fall under an argument on that subject. This phrase, the  day of the Lord, is often used in the prophetic writings, and always in such manner as to show its application to a definite time, immediately subsequent to "the day of salvation." It is used by Paul in 1 Thess. 5:2, in an argument concerning the coming of the Lord. He says, "Of the times and seasons ye have no need that I write unto you, for yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night." This proves that the coming of Christ and the coming of the day of the Lord are so closely related that one naturally suggests the other. This, together with the words of Peter, who makes the day of the Lord synonymous with the day of judgment, fixes to a certainty

this fact, that "the day of judgment" is a definite time-a future day, the day of perdition of ungodly men, not a part of ungodly men, but of every soul that doeth evil, Jew and Gentile. 

The uniform use of the phrase, "the day of the Lord," in both Testaments, proves the correctness of this exposition. A few instances of its use by the prophets, I notice:

"Thus saith the Lord God: Howl ye, Woe worth the day! For the day is near, even the day of the Lord is near, a cloudy day; it shall be the time of the heathen." Eze. 30:2, 3.

"Alas for the day! for the day of the Lord is at hand, and as a destruction from the Almighty shall it come." Joel 1:15.

"Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, and sound an alarm in my holy mountain; let all the inhabitants of the land tremble: for the day of the Lord cometh, for it is nigh at hand." Chap. 2:1.

"And the Lord shall utter his voice before his army; for his camp is very great: for he is strong that executeth his word; for the day of the Lord is great, and very terrible; and who can abide it?" Verse 11.  

"Howl ye; for the day of the Lord is at hand; it shall come as a destruction from the Almighty." Isa. 13:6.

"Enter into the rock, and hide thee in the dust, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty. The lofty looks of man shall be humbled, and the haughtiness of men shall be bowed down, and the Lord alone shall be exalted in that day. For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, and upon every one that is lifted up, and they shall be brought low." Isa. 2:10-12.

"In that day shall a man cast his idols of silver and his idols of gold, which they made each one for himself to worship, to the moles and to the bats; to go into the clefts of the rocks, and into the tops of the ragged rocks, for fear of the Lord, and for the glory of his majesty, when he ariseth to shake terribly the earth." Verses 20, 21.

This last quotation from the prophet Isaiah is exactly parallel with Rev. 6:14-17, which relate to the events of that great day under the opening of the sixth seal. In that day they endeavor to hide "from the face of Him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb," saying, "For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand?"

No one can doubt that the expressions, day of the Lord, day of wrath, day of perdition, and day of judgment, refer to the same period, to which day the unjust are reserved to be punished; and the wicked who prospered in his way in this life, and died in peace and quiet, shall be brought forth to the day of wrath; for every soul of man that doeth evil shall suffer tribulation and anguish, indignation and wrath, in that day. If anything can be clearly proved by the Scriptures, it seems to me that this is proved, that the unjust are reserved to be punished, not to the day of the death of each individual, but to the day in which the heavens and earth shall melt with fervent heat, which is the day of the Lord, the day of judgment, the day of perdition of ungodly men. 

TO BE CONTINUED….

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…)

Are You Living Hopeless?

 Adam and Eve sinned, the penalty for that was death. God told them-

Gen 2:16  And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: 

Gen 2:17  But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. 

They disobeyed God and ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil and when they did that, they did something irrevocable. They gained the knowledge of good and evil together. They chose to know evil. They chose to take on all that evil is- in all its forms. To choose to know evil was a decision made by a bite into forbidden fruit. They knew they'd die, God told them beforehand. They were told of an action and the ultimate result of that action. Do this and then this will happen. 

I believe it was because Satan used his influence on Eve that God did not simply irradicate humanity. This was one of probably other contingencies put in place for mankind.  If man does this then this is the result, if man does that then this is what will happen, and so on. We know this-

1Pe 1:19  But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: 

1Pe 1:20  Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 

Foreordained BEFORE the foundation of the world. Part of the whole plan of mankind was a Savior if the Savior was needed, if mankind were worth the opportunity of redemption. Eve was beguiled, Adam listened to Eve- Satan was the beguiler. Satan used his influence on Eve urging her to do something she would not have done on her own. 

Mankind needed a Savior and was worthy of that opportunity. Mankind hadn't chosen to disobey God's command all on their own, all of their own accord. That mankind could be influenced to disobey was in and of itself warranting the penalty they knew they'd have to pay. For even when Satan beguiled Eve and told her they wouldn't die, Eve knew God had told them they would. Death was on the table. They disobeyed and death became the penalty. 

Because Adam and Eve had the knowledge of good and evil from the moment they ate the forbidden fruit they could not unknow the evil and any children they would have would eventually learn evil as well. So much of man changed upon ingesting the fruit of knowledge. That knowledge brought instant alteration to man's form inside and out- physically, mentally, spiritually, emotionally, everything changed. Nothing about man was left untouched by the evil knowledge they'd chosen. Because they no longer had access to the tree of life they no longer had the attributes the tree of life gave them. Everything altered, it  had to because evil was unleashed. No, not every single bit of mankind was instantly changed, time ravaged what man was originally even more. The long slow decay of the first of mankind went on for hundreds of years, eventually to the point a mere 70 some years is the average lifespan and for the majority of those people there is a lot of pain in those years of living. 

God knew mankind would survive as creatures knowing good and evil, and that each of mankind as individuals would make choices throughout the life they were allotted and the sum of those choices would determine what course their ultimate existence would hold. Man would have the power of choosing. That power of choosing was given to Adam and Eve upon their creation and that wasn't taken away from them. They brought death to all of mankind there was no changing that fact. God brought them another chance to live after that death. Jesus, the Savior! And Jesus told mankind that He would return for them and bring them back to life. Some would be brought back to eternal life, others to eventual eternal nothingness. 

Our lives right now are spent locked in this spiritual warfare and we are either living for Christ, with Christ in us -our hope, or we are living hopeless.

God help us to be living in hope! All 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

DOUBLE INFLICTION OF THE PENALTY

Mr. Storrs claims that it would be unjust to inflict the same penalty a second time; and so much stress is laid on this idea that it demands a notice, though the objection really ceases to be of any force when it is shown that all now die by virtue of their relation to Adam, and that our probation is for a life and death beyond the present. 

Mr. Storrs says:

"Is a revival into life not a reversal, or abrogation, of the penalty? If abrogated, can it be inflicted a second time without a second trial and sin repeated." Life from the Dead, p. 8.

To this I reply, 

1. A revival to life is not a reversal of the penalty; for the penalty has not yet been inflicted. It is only a reversal of the inevitable consequence of Adam's fall, to which consequence our probation does not reach. 

2.There is "a second trial and sin repeated," in the case of every individual transgressor; and

Mr. Storrs' remarks on the judgment of Adam present that fact in a striking view.

He says:

"Adam stood under a law, in a dispensation peculiar to himself. . . . It admitted of no repentance or renewed obedience by which the punishment could be remitted; for one transgression the transgressor must die. Under that law Adam was placed. He transgressed-his

dispensation ended, and God set in judgment on him; arraigned Adam at the judgment-seat-heard the testimony-found him guilty-proceeded solemnly to pronounce the penalty of the law, but saw fit to keep the day of execution of the sentence in his own power, and hidden from the knowledge of the criminal; but ultimately he was executed."

And then he asks: 

"Why is Adam to be made alive, to be judged over again, and die a second time? We discover no Scripture warrant for such an idea." Id., p. 75.

Now, according to Mr. Storrs' own showing, that dispensation or probation ended with that "one transgression," and judgment set, and sentence was pronounced on the act; but the sentence was not executed for nearly one thousand years after that judgment. Then, I inquire, was Adam on probation during the many hundred years that he lived after that sentence was

pronounced? I think he was; but if so, he was, of course, under a new probation. But if not, then there were over nine hundred years of Adam's life for which he was not held accountable! I cannot discover any warrant, either in Scripture or reason, for his being "made alive to be judged over again," so far as that "one transgression "is concerned for which he was judged, but I do discover an evident reason why he should be judged for the actions of a long life that he lived after that first judgment. And they must admit the conclusion, or deny that Adam had a second [original illegible] But such a denial is attended with further difficulty, it being equivalent to a denial that [original illegible] children after him had any probation. For, if [original illegible] be inquired where the probation was introduced under which his children

were placed, everyone will point to the promise given to Adam that "the seed of the woman" should bruise the serpent' head. Here commenced the gospel system. But it was revealed to Adam, and through him to [original illegible] posterity. And if a new probation was not there introduced to Adam, when and where was it introduced? Will the believers in the non-resurrection theory point to the scripture giving information on this point, that is, if they deny that Adam had another probation granted to him? We find but one revelation of the bringing in of a gospel hope to Adam and his immediate descendants-that in the third chapter of Genesis concerning" the seed" of the woman. But if that was the introduction of a new dispensation, of a probation under which repentance and faith in "the seed" would procure remission, it then follows that Adam had a second trial in this new system. And, of course, for transgressions under this new probation there must be another judgment; and if this transgression was not forgiven, the penalty must be inflicted for this, as well as for the other. Otherwise the penalty of one of these dispensations and judgments will never be executed. And now, as Adam died under that transgression without any possibility of remission by repentance or renewed obedience, so do all his posterity-all who share in that "Adamic condition;" no degree of repentance, faith, nor obedience, will avert this death; because they were not under that dispensation which was "peculiar" to Adam, as Mr. Storrs correctly says. We had no trial of obedience or disobedience in that first judgment, though we fall under its consequences by virtue of our nature-our "Adamic condition." On this point Mr. Storrs says again:

"Adam's posterity were made subject to corruption by being excluded from the tree of life, not as a penal infliction on them," etc. Life from the Dead, p. 11. 

And it is just as true that they die for Adam's sin, as that they were made subject to corruption thereby; for exclusion from the tree of life has the same effect on them that it had on him, to wit: it prevents their living forever. And this, says Mr. Storrs, was "not a penal infliction on them." True; a penal infliction can only relate to an act under probation; but our probation does not relate to the exclusion from the tree of life, and consequent death; and therefore this death

cannot be the penalty of our personal transgressions; but the "second death" is that penalty.

On this point I will only add: 

1. We are never exhorted to repent of Adam's sin, nor to avert its consequences. Here is where the Pedobaptists err. Infants have no personal sins to be remitted; therefore if they are baptized for the reason given in the gospel, that is, for the remission of sin, it must be Adam's sin, not

their own. But such an idea is never hinted in the Scriptures; it is contrary to the facts and reasons given in the case. Yet according to the non-resurrection views it is the only chance for the salvation of children, Infant-baptismal regeneration and this non-resurrectionism should go together.

2. Christ is to be the judge of men, for the Father has put all judgment in his hands, and the secrets of men are to be judged by him. And into that judgment "every work" shall be brought, evil as well as good. And it is in view of that judgment that the exhortations are given, and threatenings made, in the Bible. But there is no intimation that Adam's sin will come into that judgment. The judgment for that is far in the past; with that we, as probationers, have nothing to do.

I Didn't Always Believe.

 All of us die. Adam and Eve were given the opportunity to never die, to be immortal. As the first of mankind they were given a lot of responsibility. When the tempter, Satan deceived them by saying the words, 'Ye shall not surely die.' He lied. Did Adam and Eve jump up and down in joy upon sinning and not being struck instantly dead? No. They didn't have time to celebrate their escape of instant death, they were too busy trying to comprehend their life without God. They were instantly stripped of His glorious covering of light and realizing a life without their protector. They wanted to know evil, and they were instantly feeling its affects. Fear. They'd never known fear, they'd never known wrong doing. The awfulness of what they'd done was apparent to them and their regret, their sorrow was very real. No, they didn't have time to celebrate living when living was filled with terror, shame, and regret. The life they were still being allowed to live wasn't going to be the life filled with the glory of God, it was going to be a life of horror and hardship. They'd done wrong. They made the wrong choice and they knew it. It's almost safe to imagine they were never truly happy again having known a perfect love and lost it by their own doing. They also knew that they were going to die, and dying wasn't going to be an easy thing. They were going to live through their bodies degrading over time, it was going to be a very slow dying, ultimately they breathed no more, their heart beats stopped and their corruptible bodies began to know corruption, rapid corruption. The first death they knew was the death of beloved animals they'd named. Those animals were suddenly lifeless, their skins stripped from their bodies, and those skins given to Adam and Eve to wear in place of the glorious light of God's covering. They saw death. Those animals that were killed didn't get up and start living again without their skins. Those animals lay there decaying. This they knew would eventually be their own end. They were going to be gone. Before that, they had to experience the death of their son, Abel. Murdered by his own brother. The very first son born to mankind was a murderer. Seeing the lifeless body of their son, Abel, Adam and Eve did not celebrate his transition to another life, they knew that wasn't what was happening. They knew their son's life was completely and utterly over. This was the death that Satan lied about telling them they would not die. The tragedy was beyond anything they'd known, death. The end. God did NOT tell them if they sinned they would struggle for a while then die only to be given a glorious life after death. No. Death was an end. Their hope was in the future, in a Savior who would destroy Satan and along with Satan all the evil in existence. We all die. Our lives truly come to an end. All that makes us who we are is reserved in death's sleep. And what we are will not be awakened from death's sleep individually but all at once when our Savior returns and calls us to Him in His miraculous way.  This is BIBLICAL, this is TRUTH. If we believe Satan's lie that we won't die- we do not accept the truth that we do. And by death I mean death, not death and instant new life- that is a lie. Some people console themselves and others with the lie that they are going to a better place as soon as they die, in effect they are telling others and themselves that they aren't really dead, just moving on to another plane of existence. Lies. Delusions. Deception. And none of that is of God, none. How many millions of people are going to be lost to eternal life because they cherish lies and refuse truth?  Don't pat yourself on the back right now and say that I'm the deluded one and I'll understand in time, I'm just a little confused, no harm no foul. The truth is, if I'm believing lies, I'm not following God's truth, and if I'm not following God's truth then I will not be God's. I have to seek truth and nothing else. I have had to give up MANY of my cherished beliefs in the face of truth, I wasn't raised with the things I believe now. I was shown truth in the word of God, the Holy Spirit opened my heart to truth and I was given a choice to either believe the truth, or believe lies. I praise God, I am eternally grateful to my Lord and Savior, for truth!

*******

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

By J.H. Waggoner

DISTINCTION OF "BLOOD-LIFE" A FALLACY

Both Mr. Storrs and Mr. Curry make a point and lay much stress on the supposed distinction between the "blood-life" and "spirit-life;" their position being that the blood-life is forfeited to the law, and that the law, as a matter of justice, holds it forever; that the life that is laid down in death is not taken up again in the resurrection, but another or spirit-life is conferred in its stead. The fallacy of this has already been shown in that it makes the justified pay the same forfeit as the condemned, which is unjust. To further show its erroneousness, I will compare their statements with those of the Scriptures. 

Said Mr. Curry:

"How was it with Christ? He laid down his blood-life, made an atonement, but he never took it up again. That was the purchase, the forfeit." Debate with Grant, p. 91. 

And Mr. Storrs says: "It was the price paid; his blood-life is laid down forever, and is never taken again." Life from the Dead, p. 92. 

But the words of the Saviour stand directly opposed to these assumptions. He says: "I lay down my life that I might take it again. . . I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father." John 10:17, 18. This expression-"take it again"-shows that no such distinction obtains in the Scriptures. If he laid down one life and never took it again, but took another in its stead, as they assert, then this language of the Saviour is most unhappily chosen. And as the Saviour's statement is as plain and explicit as theirs, and directly contradicts theirs, I must conclude that their view was never drawn from the Bible, but was gotten up to meet the necessity of their theory.

THEIR THEORY OF THE TWO RESURRECTIONS

The fact that there are two "orders" of the resurrection, or two resurrections in point of time, seems to stand out so prominently in the Scriptures that they are constrained to admit it; but they will not admit that the last, or second, is of "the unjust;" of them "that have done evil;" of the "rest" in distinction from the "blessed and holy." But admitting the fact of a second resurrection, they have had to contradict themselves and deny their own  invulnerable principles to maintain their denial that this resurrection is of the wicked. See the following statements. 

Says Mr. Storrs:

"Apart from Christ, when a man dies, he dies in his sins, and has lost his life never to find it again." Life from the Dead, p. 33.

"Thus the resurrection of the dead to life belongs to Christ and his body, the church-all true believers, under whatever dispensation they may have lived; and from this revival into life all others, it seems to us, are absolutely excluded." Id., p. 35.

"Life from the dead is a peculiarity of the gospel-a gospel benefit-and believers only live again." Id., p. 27.

But in commenting on Rev. 20:5, he says:

"If the text were a genuine one, it would be easy to show that it may not embrace the unholy at all. It might refer to the living again of the virtuous heathen, who had never heard of Christ, and therefore had not suffered for the witness of Jesus and for the word of God; hence, were not embraced in the 'first resurrection,' but are to have life afterwards; for surely, 'in every nation he that feareth God and worketh righteousness'-according to the light he has-'is accepted with him,' and will have life through Jesus, though he had never heard of him." Id., pp. 70, 71. 

Dropping the paradoxical idea of the heathen who fear God and work righteousness! we notice that, according to Eld. Storrs, (1) A resurrection is a peculiarity of the gospel, and of course is inadmissible outside the gospel. (2) It belongs to the church-to believers in Christ, only, and all others are absolutely excluded. But (3), The second resurrection "may embrace" a class who were not believers in Christ, who never heard of him. Peter's testimony in Acts 10, clearly proves that the faithfully obedient in all nations-Jews and Gentiles-are accepted with God; but Cornelius had the gospel message sent to him to teach him what he ought to do. To refer to these facts and circumstances to prove the salvation of those who have no faith, is a manifest perversion of the Scriptures. That any one of Mr. Storrs' ability and power of discrimination should put forth sentiments so unscriptural and self-contradictory, is strong evidence of the weakness of the theory he advocates. And Mr. Curry, who seemed to closely follow Mr. Storrs, is equally unfortunate in his expressions on this subject. He laid down the following as an "unanswerable principle:"

"There is no future life without justification, and justification comes by faith alone." Debate, p. 106. 

And again he said:

"That is the true, Christian, orthodox, Protestant doctrine-justification by faith; and I contend that there is no other justification in the Bible, and without justification there can be no future life." Id., p. 77.

After thus emphatically confining a future life to those who are justified by faith in Christ, he says: 

"May it not be that he will save a great many righteous heathen, though they are not saved at his coming? That there will be a second resurrection of the righteous? Is it not possible? It has no difficulty with me. And I believe the resurrection will be one of the virtuous heathen, but not of the wicked dead. And so I preach it." Id., p. 75.

But of the heathen he says, in another place:

"The gospel does not address itself to the heathen. They come under a law peculiar to themselves." Id., p. 89.

Here again we notice that, (1) There is no justification in the Bible, except by faith. (2) There is no future life without justification. But (3), There is a future life to those who have no faith. And it is no relief from the contradiction to say the gospel does not address itself to them; for then I inquire, Where does he get his knowledge of a resurrection unto life outside the gospel? His declaration admits that it is not "in the Bible." Then by what authority does he "preach it?" It is certainly no recommendation to the non-resurrection theory that its advocates have to invent "another gospel" to accommodate it!

I read that "all the world" stand condemned-"guilty before God;" and that God "now commandeth all men everywhere to repent;" and that "without faith it is impossible to please God." Jesus also said, "No man cometh to the Father but by me." But in the above quotations there is a system of salvation taught which ignores these truths; and, this being the case, it is comparatively a small matter that they have contradicted their much-cherished "principles" to sustain it. The same facts which led them to make the above statements, we have also discovered in the Scriptures. We see that the conclusion is unavoidable that there is more than one "order," or class, in the resurrection. But we never thought necessary to refer a righteous resurrection, or resurrection to eternal life, to "them that know not God," nor to devise a justification or system of salvation not taught in the Bible. We find a more easy, because a more scriptural, solution in referring it to the "resurrection of the unjust"-of "them that have done evil." We learn that all now die in Adam without regard to character; but they are on probation, the result of which is life or death. And as they do not now die in view of that probation, as is proved by the fact that they die without any regard to the character formed under that probation, they must be raised to die "the second death," which is the only death to which their probation relates. This only meets the demands of justice. And this is the teaching of the Bible.