Cherished Fables May Cost Us Eternal Life.

 More than ever we need the Holy Spirit to enlighten us to all truth. We cannot be satisfied with flippant answers to serious subjects. We cannot ignore truth in favor of liking what we read. The truth isn't ours to toy with. So many aren't willing to dig deep into the Word, preferring to be spoon fed the food others have harvested. The trouble is preferring to be fed by others, means we don't really know if it is the food God would have us ingest. I'm not saying it's wrong to read what others have been led to write, but we have to study for ourselves what is true, not just believe it because we are used to being fed. We can't trust any human spiritual food source without praying and studying for ourselves. If we can take the spiritual food to the word of God and pray for enlightenment through the Holy Spirit, and study it out so that it a makes sense as it is given- then we can feast on the truth before us. To eat without prayer, without studying, endangers us in ways that put our eternal lives in peril. If we get so used to simply swallowing the word given to us by others that we don't do for ourselves -we may swallow lies, and a whole bunch of them. 

God please help us to KNOW YOU for ourselves, search for You, pray to You, study under the guidance of the Holy Spirit in the way You would have us do! We know some are teachers which means those teachers have students and students aren't teachers.  The students have to know that their teachers are teachers of truth, and not teachers of deception, and they must do this by prayer and trying the spirits…

1Jn_4:1  Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.

This is our job! We must not just believe a teacher who speaks the things we like to hear, but try those teachers lessons by the Word of God and know whether those lessons are TRUTH. 

We are responsible, and Jesus will not want to hear that we were duped, not when we have a choice to choose truth over lies by searching for only truth. Our trying to blame another for leading us astray will not work. Many are going to tell Jesus that they were doing all sorts of wonderful things in His name, but Jesus is going to tell them He doesn't know them!  How scary is that?! That should get us digging deep into God's word for ourselves, praying for truth and only truth! If we have cherished fables to give up, may God give us the strength to do so. Those cherish fables are NOT WORTH our eternal life!  God help us ALL!

All in the name of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ! Now and forever! AMEN!!!!!!!

*******

Resurrection of the Just and Unjust

*******

(EXCERPT)

The unjust will be resurrected, some object to this truth. The article we've been studying is vindicating the truth of the resurrection of the unjust- scripturally, logically. Pray for enlightenment through our Savior, by the Holy Spirit.

A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Unjust

By J.H. Waggoner 

CONTINUING STUDY….

Another objection, supposed to be insurmountable, is urged as follows; In announcing his hope, Paul said he believed all things which are written in the law and the prophets; but the prophets never said the wicked should be raised; therefore this was no part of his belief. A specious argument, truly, to avoid the force of a positive declaration! I have two objections to urge against this assertion:

(1) Those who claim as above are not always safe guides in regard to what the prophets teach. Probably not one of them would ever have known that Abraham had the resurrection taught to him, had not Paul affirmed it. Heb. 11:17-19. Perhaps this reference is the first of the idea to some of them. Nor would they have known that Jehovah's words to Moses prove a resurrection of the dead, had not Jesus so explained them. Luke 20:37, 88. Which of them, by reading Isa. 7:10-16, would ever have thought of applying this prophecy to the birth of Christ, had not Matthew so applied it. Matt. 1:23. And so I might quote a score of texts, for the application of which we are entirely dependent on the comments of New-Testament speakers and writers. In the light of these facts, it seems nothing short of arrogance to rise up against the plain statement of the apostle with a counter statement, in a matter wherein, from the very nature of the case, their testimony is not admissible against him. 

But (2) I affirm that the prophets do teach the resurrection of the wicked. Every text which has been, or might be, quoted to prove a future judgment of the wicked, is proof of their resurrection. Such texts are not scarce. But there is one at least which plainly and positively teaches the resurrection of the unjust. I refer to Dan. 12:2. I am not ignorant of the efforts made to destroy the force of this plain declaration. I should be very much surprised that men of learning have given such a criticism as to destroy the meaning of this text, were I not aware of the fact that learning is no safeguard against error. Prof. Bush was the first to start on this side-track, and quite consistently ended the course by entirely denying the literal resurrection of the dead. For here is where consistency requires us to go if we deny the resurrection of the wicked; for if such plain, positive statements as are found in John 5:28, 29; Acts 24:15, and others, can be spiritualized away, then every text supposed to teach the resurrection of the dead may be likewise easily set aside.

That two classes are brought to view in Dan. 12:2, will not be denied. It is also admitted that there are two elliptical clauses in the text. Granting that the words rendered "some" should be rendered "these" and "those" (of which, however, I am not satisfied), the text will only be read correctly when the ellipses are properly supplied. They who deny the resurrection of the wicked read it thus: "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, these the awakened to everlasting life, and those the unawakened to shame and everlasting contempt." The italic words in this reading point out where the ellipses are to be supplied. But the reading is altogether defective. In supplying an ellipsis, no new member should be introduced in the sentence; that only should be supplied, the omission of which

prevents tautology. In the reading quoted above, the ellipsis is supplied in neither case; but a comment or note of explanation inserted instead. This is not admissible. It will be seen that the sentences are precisely alike in construction, thus: "These---to everlasting life; and those---to shame and everlasting contempt." "These" and "those" refer to the individuals comprising the "many" that "awake;" and these individuals are not classified or separated into parties before these sentences are introduced, but are spoken of collectively. Hence, both sentences refer back to "shall awake," as their predicate, [understood.] Each sentence must have at least two elements, the subject, or nominative, and the predicate, or verb. "These the awakened to everlasting life," is not a complete sentence; "those the unawakened to shame," is open to the same objection. "Shall awake" is the only predicate relating to "life" and to "shame," respectively, as shown by the preposition. The omission of this in each case prevents  tautology; and its insertion does not introduce any new member in the sentence. Therefore this is the proper rendering of the text: "Many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake; these shall awake to everlasting life; and those shall awake to shame and everlasting contempt." And I contend that no other words can be inserted without perverting the text. Submitting this criticism to an accomplished teacher, he remarked that the only difficulty that the case presented was to prove a thing which was so evidently true. And this passage affords the most positive evidence of a resurrection of two classes, having entirely different destinies beyond the resurrection. If Paul believed all that was "written in the prophets," he must have believed in the resurrection of the unjust. And this was his confession of faith. Eld. Storrs, noticing the translation of "these" and "those," by Bush and Whiting, says: "Such being the facts, no argument in favor of the wicked dead being made alive again can be strengthened by using this text; for when translated according to Whiting and Bush, it is against the wicked's living from the dead." Life from the Dead, p. 39.

I have used the translation of Whiting and Bush, and I confidently appeal to the reader if it alters the sense of the passage so as, by any fair grammatical construction, to contradict the rising or awaking of the wicked. Bush, in his comment, says those refers to the unawakened; but a comment and a translation are quite different things. I have allowed the translation, though I do not think it beyond dispute. The same words-ailleh and weailleh-are translated "some" in other texts, and apparently correctly, as in Josh. 8:22, "some," "and some." And in truth they are the same word, the "we" being a prefix generally answering to the conjunction "and;" and it assuredly does answer to that word in the text in question. And so the LXX have rendered it in different places. Take, for instance, Ps. 20:7. "Some [Heb. ailleh-Gr. outoi] trust in chariots, and some [Heb. weailleh-Gr. kai outoi] in horses." And so in Dan. 12:2, both in Hebrew and Greek. Granting that "these" is generally a better rendering of ailleh and outoi than "some," there yet appears no necessity for a change of the word by the presence of the conjunction. 

In any possible view, I cannot see that the inference drawn from this passage by those who deny the resurrection of the unjust has any foundation whatever. I think the remark of Eld. Storrs is very unguarded, to say the least, and calculated to give the impression that a correct translation of the text makes it oppose the rising of the wicked, which is not the case.

To be continued….

Vengeance.

 Love and Vengeance. 

Some want to say the two can't go hand in hand because Jesus told us even when we are wronged by someone to turn the other cheek, we are to forgive others over and over not taking any vengeance. Why? 

Rom_12:19  Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Psa 94:1  O LORD God, to whom vengeance belongeth; O God, to whom vengeance belongeth, shew thyself. 

Nah 1:2  God is jealous, and the LORD revengeth; the LORD revengeth, and is furious; the LORD will take vengeance on his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies. 

Nah 1:3  The LORD is slow to anger, and great in power, and will not at all acquit the wicked: the LORD hath his way in the whirlwind and in the storm, and the clouds are the dust of his feet. 

Heb 10:30  For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people. 

Heb 10:31  It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Vengeance belongs to God. You may question why to God and not to us who are experiencing the wrong right then and there? Us, whose hearts are breaking from the agonies caused by others against us in so many ways, don't we have the right to exact vengeance? No, the answer is absolutely, no. 

Why? Because we are sinners. We have done wrong to others maybe not in gross, blatant displays of horror, but even by a thought we may have had- we sin. Our hands are bloody. We are guilty. We can in no way raise up in vengeance against others with our bloody guilt ridden hands except to add more guilt, more blood to them. 

God is pure, just, love. God is all that is good without fault. God alone can exact vengeance because He alone is guiltless and can judge the guilt of man perfectly. 

We must throw ourselves at the feet of our Savior begging mercy, pleading for unwarranted forgiveness, exposing our sinful selves fully and asking to be cleansed by the blood of His the greatest of sacrifices! We cry mercy! Mercy! Because we know our guilt covers us in its filth, its putrid stench that threatens to crush our spirit fully were it not for the hope we cry out for… MERCY! Please, Lord, have mercy on us wretches, so completely undeserving of Your smallest of thoughts. MERCY!

Vengeance belongs to the LORD, not us. As we suffer abuse in all its many forms - from the tiniest abuse to the most terrifying, we must cling to the truth that the pure hands of our Savior will avenge us one day, and on the heels of that thought we must pray… pray and forgive our enemies, hoping they too will come to know the forgiveness of our blessed, loving, all gracious, all worthy LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST!

Amen!

*******

Resurrection of the Just and Unjust

*******

(EXCERPT)

The unjust will be resurrected, some object to this truth. The article we've been studying is vindicating the truth of the resurrection of the unjust- scripturally, logically. Pray for enlightenment through our Savior, by the Holy Spirit.

A Vindication of the Doctrine of the Resurrection of the Unjust

By J.H. Waggoner 

CONTINUING STUDY….

'I next appeal to the words of Paul, in Acts 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." 

On this text it may be well first to say, that the translation is as correct as may be; a better rendering, probably, could not be given. Some versions reject the words, "of the dead;" there is some doubt of their genuineness; but Greenfield, following Griesbach, says there is not sufficient evidence to justify their removal from the text. This is not material, as no doubt has ever been raised as to the subject of the remark; all admit, so far as I know, that the subject is the resurrection of the dead.

This text is an exceedingly difficult one for the opposers of the resurrection of the wicked. Eld. Storrs says, "This text would have great weight on the question if there were no opposing considerations." Whether the "opposing considerations" are sufficient to counteract the weight of the text, let the reader judge. 

In favor of the doctrine taught by the text, I have nothing to say. Words cannot add to the force of the passage, as it is so plain that it does not admit of explanation. In this respect it is just such a text as I always love to resort to as a proof text: it needs no labor to make it prove what it is quoted to prove. But a great deal of labor has been spent to destroy its testimony in favor of the resurrection of the unjust. It is claimed that, as Paul is herein laying down the object of his hope, he cannot mean to say that the unjust will be raised, as that cannot be an object of hope.

It is quite gratuitous to speculate on what Paul meant to say, while we have in plain terms what he did say! Greenfield gives the definition expect, as well as hope, to the original; but that  rendering is not necessary; I accept it as it stands.

The hope of the resurrection of the dead is a legitimate hope, and it necessarily includes two parties. The hope of the coming of Christ is a legitimate hope, because it is based on positive revelation; yet the reward of the righteous is no more certain to rest upon that coming than it is certain that the terrible destiny of the wicked is suspended on his coming. The hope of his coming necessarily embraces all the concomitants of his coming, and all these are alike subjects of prophetic promise. 

In regard to the word hope, there is no more incongruity in Paul's words in Acts 24:15, than in Peter's words in 2 Pet. 3:7-9, where he bases the expectation of the melting of the earth and perdition of ungodly men on the promise of God. Let our opponents on Paul's words note this text; it will be difficult for them to apply their rule of exposition to Peter's prophecy. But if they feel compelled to free the words of revelation from such appearance of incongruity, let them try their hand on Psalm 136:10, 15: "To Him that smote Egypt in their first-born; for his mercy endureth forever." "But overthrew Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea; for his mercy endureth forever:" They might do by this as they do by Acts 24:15: deny that it means so, because there was no mercy in the transaction. But there was mercy to somebody involved, if not to Pharaoh and his host; and so of Acts 24; somebody's hope rests on these facts. But whether it be denied or distorted, there it stands, a decisive declaration of the resurrection of the unjust.

A very weak point is made by the advocates of that theory, of which I am reminded by their comments on Paul's hope. Thus it is said, "If the love of God can raise the wicked to punish them, then only may they be raised; for God is love." Very good for Universalists, but defective in point of fact. Suppose we say, If the love of God will destroy the wicked, then may they be destroyed, but not otherwise. And this is apposite; for Jesus, who raises the dead, likewise takes vengeance. 2 Thess. 1:7, 8; Rev. 6:16, I7. 

2Th 1:7  And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, 

2Th 1:8  In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ

Rev 6:16  And said to the mountains and rocks, Fall on us, and hide us from the face of him that sitteth on the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb: 

Rev 6:17  For the great day of his wrath is come; and who shall be able to stand? 

If judgment destinies were to be decided by love alone, the revelation which God has made to us would be far different from what it now is. Justice is the ruling attribute in that transaction, for the offer of mercy to the incorrigible is entirely withdrawn before the judgment is executed; and he who loses sight of this fact is poorly qualified to reason on the nature and events of that day.

To be continued…

Witness to Our Pain.

 Should you die before Christ returns will you need to be resurrected? Do you mistakenly believe you are resurrected the moment after you stop breathing never to breathe again? 

Being resurrected- Jesus was resurrected. Jesus' body disappeared from the tomb. If I open your grave the day after you're buried would you still be in that grave? Yes. You were not resurrected. But we know there will be a day of resurrection.

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. 

The HOUR is coming … ALL that are in the graves…

This plainly teaches that there will be a time when ALL that are in the graves will be resurrected. ALL who have died will be resurrected! You aren't resurrected upon dying, yet ask most people and they'll immediately reassure you that your loved ones are in heaven right now, as if they'd already been resurrected! It's not true! 

Our benevolent God has designed this part of our lives so perfectly as the God of LOVE He is! God would NOT want our loved ones in heaven instantly upon dying, to remain there for thousands and thousands of years while others are born and die, born and die, born and die and they get to watch from their heavenly perch ALL the evil forced upon their loved ones. Tell me SERIOUSLY, could your loved ones be happy watching you in and out every day with every single thing you have ever done since their death? They watch every time you are sick, every time you face heart break, every time you tell a lie, every time you do anything at all whatsoever- that is embarrassing, or heart wrenching to them. They get to watch you die, and this is something you believe is a good thing, a loving thing? When you stop and truly examine the word of God, more than at a cursory glance, you realize a loving God would NOT allow such horrors to be witnessed since the first death till now by those who are His in heaven. God designed death to be an end of all cognitive thinking, and calls it a sleep. Why, because when we sleep we know nothing but the next time we wake up. In this case, after we wake up from death's sleep we WILL wake up and rise to meet our LORD in the air, if we are His! We will be resurrected!  Such perfection. We have the reassurance our loved ones are sleeping peacefully, truly sleeping without any worries! We aren't disappointing them in any way, we aren't worrying them in any way, because they aren't watching us now. They won't see us die, they won't see any suffering at all that we must go through. They won't watch us make mistakes, they won't see any of it. You protest that you want them to witness the joys, but ask yourself this… does your idea of heaven contain heartaches or only joy? To imagine that our loved ones witness our lives here on earth is to comprehend they see it all, every moment, you can't have them just witnessing our happy times and not the bad if they are a witness to all the things in our lives. 

I'm extremely grateful to know my loved ones are sleeping death's sleep peacefully, extremely grateful. It fills my heart with joy to know they are in a peaceful sleep knowing nothing. There will be a time for a reunion when our Savior calls us to meet Him in the air to forever more be with Him, and that reunion with Him and our loved ones will be amazing! Our dead loved ones will not know they missed our lives, they will only know they have us with them now and forever with Christ Jesus, and there will be NO pain, NO heartache, NO tears, NO death.. Just joy in celebrating all. Just think of the generations of family members meeting for the first time all in the love of GOD! 

All through the love of our LORD and SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST now and forever! AMEN!!!!!!!

*******

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 

CONTINUING STUDY….

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--

IV. It contradicts the plain teaching of the Bible in regard to the resurrection of 

the unjust.

First, I appeal to the words of the Saviour in John 5:28, 29. "The hour is coming in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil to the resurrection of damnation." In the verse preceding, he said the Father had "given him authority to execute judgment," and we have already seen when the judgment will be executed,-in that great day of wrath unto which the unjust are now "reserved," and unto which they are eventually to be "brought forth." Every attempt to avoid the force of this plain, positive testimony of the Son of God, so far as I have seen, is only an evasion. It is contended that the prophets declare they shall not rise, and of course the Saviour does not contradict them, so he cannot mean what we claim on his language. Suppose we turn it in this manner. 

The prophets testified of Christ, who came into the world to bear witness to the truth; and of course they could not contradict his testimony; and therefore, inasmuch as he says the unjust shall come forth from the graves to a resurrection, any construction of their language which would make them contradict him is inadmissible. And two important considerations sustain me in this position. 

1. It is a just principle of criticism that the words of the prophets are to be explained by the declarations of the New Testament, for, in many respects, the New Testament is a commentary on the Old

2. There is not so clear evidence in the prophets against the resurrection of the unjust as there is in the New Testament in its favor. The strength of evidence lies on this side of the question. The truth of this statement will be seen, I trust, when we carefully examine the texts. 

In the Saviour's words in John 5:28, 29, we notice:

1. There can be no reasonable dispute in regard to the nature of the resurrection in this passage, as it is introduced by his authority to execute judgment. 

2. Before he divides them into two classes he speaks of them collectively as being in one place, thus, "all that are in the graves." 

3. He affirms of them all alike that they "shall come forth." 

4. The words immediately following explain that this coming forth is the resurrection; that is, they shall come forth from the graves. The same expression the Saviour used when he raised Lazarus from the dead. Chap. 11:43. 

5. Having fixed the fact that they shall all, come forth from the graves, he next divides them that come forth into two classes. 

6. He says that they that have done good [shall come forth] unto the resurrection of life. That this is a literal, actual resurrection, cannot, with any show of reason, be denied; for if the coming forth from the graves to the resurrection of life, is not the literal resurrection of the just, what can it mean? or what language can describe that event? 

7. He also says they that have done evil [shall come forth] unto the resurrection of damnation. The statement concerning the evil-doers, is identical with that concerning the welldoers, except as to the object of their respective resurrections. 

Both classes are in the graves; both come forth from the graves; both have a resurrection. I pity the person who attempts to array the Scriptures against these words of the Son of God. But plain as are these words, there are objections urged against them. These I must notice. It is objected that the term resurrection has sometimes a figurative meaning, and therefore this resurrection of evil-doers is not a literal resurrection. We admit that the term is sometimes used figuratively, and so are most all other words.

"Life" and "rise" are also used figuratively; why may we not apply their remark to their proof texts, and so remove their objection to the Saviour's words? Surely the word is not always used figuratively, and if I were left to select a text where it is not so used, John 5:29 would be that one. The objection is an unreasonable one. If this text does not refer to a literal resurrection of the saints, how shall that doctrine be proved? But the same facts are predicated of both classes. They are all in the graves. Does this mean that the righteous are in literal graves, and the wicked in figurative graves? And they shall all come forth. Can this mean that a part come forth literally, and a part figuratively? Such interpretations are no less than trifling with the plainest declarations of the Scriptures. Prove that this means

a figurative resurrection and you easily prove that there is no literal resurrection taught in the New Testament. In proof that it is a figurative resurrection, reference is made to Eze. 37, the vision of the valley of bones, which, it is said, is a figurative resurrection. But this claim I deny. That the vision itself embraces figures, I admit. But the Lord gave an explanation of the vision; if the explanation is also figurative, it amounts to no explanation at all, as another explanation of its figures would be necessary to an understanding of it. See the parable of the wheat and tares in Matt. 13. The parable itself is in figurative language, but the Saviour's explanation is in literal terms, otherwise it is no explanation When the Lord explained the vision to Ezekiel he said; "These dry bones are [represent in figure] the whole house of Israel." Is the "house of Israel" a figure of speech? If so, what does it represent? Away with such pretended expositions of the word of God. But what shall take place as represented by the vision? "Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel." Will the promise to Abraham ever be fulfilled that he shall possess that land? See Acts 7:4, 5. It will.

How? Just as is here promised to all the Israel of God, by opening his grave, and bringing him up out of his grave. They who make the Lord's words in Eze. 37:11-14, figurative, destroy all of God's promises to Israel. It is again objected that Eze. 37 proves that it is not necessary that the wicked shall be made alive to fulfill these scriptures, as the dry bones heard and were moved before there was any life in them. That was in the vision; but how is it in the actual resurrection? Do they come forth from the graves dead? Yes, replies the objector, Rev. 20 says the dead stand before God. What will men not do to sustain a theory!

Listen to the words of Jesus: "Go and show John again those things which ye do hear and

see: the blind receive their sight, and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up." The deaf heard, not in their deafness, but by being cured thereof. The lame walked when their lameness was removed; and the dead were no longer dead when they were raised up. Yet it plainly says, "The deaf hear," "the lame walk," and "the dead are raised up." Let our Saviour's words explain Rev. 20, and there is no difficulty. And again, this criticism is shown to be invalid by 1 Cor. 15:15, etc.: "Whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." Do "the dead" rise up as dead bodies? "How are the dead raised up?" This shows what the Scriptures mean by the dead being raised up. Why force a

construction on Rev. 20 which they know is not justified by common sense, nor admissible in any other part of the Bible? There will be no necessity for making the Bible teach absurdities if we keep absurd theories out of its way. But when these plain statements of Christ are referred to, we are met, as a last resort, with the declaration that "established principles" do not admit of such a construction of his language as we claim. If any are yet shaken by this declaration, I invite them to turn back, and read again the examination of the

so-called "principles" laid down by that class of expositors, and then say if there is any necessity for turning aside the plain testimony of the Lord, or making it teach that which in its obvious import it never can teach.

TO BE CONTINUED…

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….