Jump to content


Photo

Will Only The Responsible Be Judged?


  • Please log in to reply
25 replies to this topic

#1 nsr

nsr

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,072 posts

Posted 28 June 2005 - 03:00 AM

I was having this discussion with my sister last night. She was under the impression that all those who had died and never heard the Word (e.g. primitive tribesmen) would be raised and given the chance in the Millenium. I wasn't sure what the Scripture says on this matter. Can anyone direct me to the correct passages which talk about it?

#2 Flappie

Flappie

    Moderator

  • Moderators
  • 7,644 posts
  • LocationSydney, Australia

Posted 28 June 2005 - 03:04 AM

There's no 3rd group mentioned anywhere.

Of the people that are raised, some are given everlasting life, the rest are sentenced to death again.

They sound like nice theories, especially when a young (and innocent) child has died, but the Bible doesn't mention what happens to them. We simply do not know.
"The first condition of immortality is death."
Broeders in Christus

#3 nsr

nsr

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,072 posts

Posted 28 June 2005 - 05:04 AM

Ok thanks. I rather suspected that might be the case.

One passage I found last night was Acts 24:15:

and I have the same hope in God as these men, that there will be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked


Doesn't say anything about the unenlightened...

I suppose one way of looking at it is that receiving the Gospel of Christ and the grace of God are a privilege, not a right. Perhaps we shouldn't assume that every person on Earth "deserves the right" to hear it...?

#4 Amy Parkin

Amy Parkin

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,335 posts

Posted 28 June 2005 - 06:50 AM

Yes, it's a fantastic privelidge we have the Gospel message, and to believe.

Now that you mention cavemen: where do they fit in?

#5 luke

luke

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,025 posts

Posted 28 June 2005 - 08:04 AM

There's no 3rd group mentioned anywhere.

Of the people that are raised, some are given everlasting life, the rest are sentenced to death again.

They sound like nice theories, especially when a young (and innocent) child has died, but the Bible doesn't mention what happens to them. We simply do not know.

Well, (not wanting to sound harsh) we know that the Bible mentions that people die and turn to dust, so that's the end for people who don't come into the "righteous" or "wicked" catagories - so kind of do know what will happen to these people.

#6 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 28 June 2005 - 08:55 AM

Righteous and wicked are defined as those who have known and sought after (righteous), or disregarde (wicked), the law of God.

None who have not known the law of God can meet this description. See Daniel 12:2 for a clear statement that the resurrection is limited, not universal.

#7 Acomtha

Acomtha

    Theta

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 210 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 29 June 2005 - 08:01 PM

Doesn't this pretty much says that it is predestined as to whether you will be resurrected (and judged) since God has foreknowledge who will and who will not grow up enough to have the opportunity to learn and accept the truth? Which brings up a question, which is, why would God let be born darling little babies that he knew would be lost? Children that because of a misfortune out of their control will be lost? How is that love?


Acomtha

#8 Fortigurn

Fortigurn

    Moderator

  • Admin
  • 34,729 posts

Posted 29 June 2005 - 10:55 PM

Doesn't this pretty much says that it is predestined as to whether you will be resurrected (and judged) since God has foreknowledge who will and who will not grow up enough to have the opportunity to learn and accept the truth?

No, I don't think it's predestined.

Which brings up a question, which is, why would God let be born darling little babies that he knew would be lost? Children that because of a misfortune out of their control will be lost? How is that  love?


They have their life, and they live it the way they chooose. How can they be rewarded or punished on the basis of something of which they had no knowledge?

Never mind darling little babies, there are plenty of grown men and women who will never come to a knowledge of God's truth either. They live their life as they please, and they die without being called to account for it. That seems very reasonable to me.

#9 nsr

nsr

    Xi

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5,072 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 05:04 AM

I suppose if the Bible had said "don't worry about the ignorant, they'll be given a chance in the Millennium", then nobody would bother to go and out preach the Gospel.

#10 Amy Parkin

Amy Parkin

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,335 posts

Posted 30 June 2005 - 05:04 AM

I'm sure that God knows who will grow up to be righteous, and who will be judged righteous, but that doesn't mean it is predestined as such. God gives us free will; He wants us to choose to serve Him. These little babies can't just not be born! People would begin to notice! There have to be people in this world who are not righteous. That is how things work. We don't know who God will judge righteous, so someone who we think has no hope could be completely converted, and there will be much joy in heaven.

But yeah, it is really hard to get your head around. God knows how many will be saved. He knows that many darling little babies will never grow to love Him, but the unrighteous help the righteous build up their faith.

Think my mind's going in circles now. :KO:

#11 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 22 July 2005 - 06:38 AM

I suppose if the Bible had said "don't worry about the ignorant, they'll be given a chance in the Millennium", then nobody would bother to go and out preach the Gospel.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


It's really weird people need to preach it in the first place, and there are many other religions commanding that they are to be preached as well, preaching is the most inefficient method god could have ever used to spread his message and this is the contradiction, god to human beings is the omegapoint of all technology, so whenever we develop a great new technology like the internet or satellites or whatever god could have used such technology back then but didn't, therein lies the contradiction. We've developed superior communication and many other tools while god uses people walking around the globe slowly and randomly. So when we finally invent flying cars that can fly the world over in a few days, that will make these old gods look even more lazy, unloving and ineffective.

Had we had the technology (i.e. miracles god didn't think up back then) then we could have done the whole job faster and easier. If god is so amazing and miraculous his power seems pretty weak compared to our own science and technology. Just imagine what a smattering of understanding chemsitry and electricity would have done to stop wars and the "sin" god so hated. People would have had more time to preach and not to mention they'd have mountains of scientific evidence to back it up, but in the case of christianity the reverse is true, christians have very little of anything to go on and much historical evidence against them.

Edited by mordecai, 22 July 2005 - 11:09 AM.


#12 Guest_Colter_*

Guest_Colter_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 July 2005 - 07:56 AM

Mordecai, I see your still angry. You need to realize that man hasn't created anything, he simply combines elements, materials and energies that already exist.

Man can amuse himself by speculating where he came from and where we are going but really all we have are the imperfectly recorded revelations from the spirit world. Spirit world? you may ask, Jesus' was a spiritual resurrection not material, that's why he appeared and disappeared a number of times after his mortal death.

I see a contradiction in the theory that man would have been perfect had Eve not fallen yet there could not have been evil spirits ( really fallen midwayers and angels) back in the times of Christ.

Put it like this, do you believe a mortal person could be so misguided that they would strap a bomb on their body and blow up children and granddads for religion? They are simply like "demons" in material bodies. The demons of the times of Christ were simply fallen celestial trouble makers, they were atheist who "left their former estate." They have all been rounded up, they don't exist anymore after the triumph of Christ.

Their either is a God or there isn't and if there is the most important thing you need to know is that "you" are not him. What little we know about reality, the material universe, and spirituality is like a grain of sand on a beach.

I see the bible as very bias towards one group of people and heavily influenced by man, but that doesn't mean that the events that occurred down through the centuries can't be found in it.

The violent swing from an age of miracles to an age of machines has proved altogether upsetting to man. The cleverness and dexterity of the false philosophies of mechanism belie their very mechanistic contentions. The fatalistic agility of the mind of a materialist forever disproves his assertions that the universe is a blind and purposeless energy phenomenon.

The mechanistic naturalism of some supposedly educated men and the thoughtless secularism of the man in the street are both exclusively concerned with things; they are barren of all real values, sanctions, and satisfactions of a spiritual nature, as well as being devoid of faith, hope, and eternal assurances. One of the great troubles with modern life is that man thinks he is too busy to find time for spiritual meditation and religious devotion.

Materialism reduces man to a soulless automaton and constitutes him merely an arithmetical symbol finding a helpless place in the mathematical formula of an unromantic and mechanistic universe. But whence comes all this vast universe of mathematics without a Master Mathematician? Science may expatiate on the conservation of matter, but religion validates the conservation of men's souls--it concerns their experience with spiritual realities and eternal values.

The materialistic sociologist of today surveys a community, makes a report thereon, and leaves the people as he found them. Nineteen hundred years ago, unlearned Galileans surveyed Jesus giving his life as a spiritual contribution to man's inner experience and then went out and turned the whole Roman Empire upside down.

But religious leaders are making a great mistake when they try to call modern man to spiritual battle with the trumpet blasts of the Middle Ages. Religion must provide itself with new and up-to-date slogans. Neither democracy nor any other political panacea will take the place of spiritual progress. False religions may represent an evasion of reality, but Jesus in his gospel introduced mortal man to the very entrance upon an eternal reality of spiritual progression.

To say that mind "emerged" from matter explains nothing. If the universe were merely a mechanism and mind were unapart from matter, we would never have two differing interpretations of any observed phenomenon. The concepts of truth, beauty, and goodness are not inherent in either physics or chemistry. A machine cannot know, much less know truth, hunger for righteousness, and cherish goodness.

Science may be physical, but the mind of the truth-discerning scientist is at once supermaterial. Matter knows not truth, neither can it love mercy nor delight in spiritual realities. Moral convictions based on spiritual enlightenment and rooted in human experience are just as real and certain as mathematical deductions based on physical observations, but on another and higher level.

UB
Mordicai, anger can be addictive, we can get a misshapen pleasure out of it.

Edited by Colter, 22 July 2005 - 07:58 AM.


#13 mordecai_*

mordecai_*

    Iota

  • Non-Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 672 posts

Posted 22 July 2005 - 11:24 AM

Colter,

You miss the point entirely, look at what you just wrote:

... You need to realize that man hasn't created anything, he simply combines elements, materials and energies that already exist.


Exactly, but my point was god could have combined them even better then us, so whenever we find ourselves with some new technology thats better then the claims of old gods we have a right to reject those old gods simply because we're not omnipotent and we're outscoring those old gods.

Remember God has been around for an eternity of time, exists transcendant of time and place, so there is really no excuse for god to use archaic ancient methods of mankind to communicate to us, there is just no excuse what-so-ever. Not to mention you keep forgetting that the sun will all kill us when it's fuel is gone, not exactly stellar (*laugh*) design. God is the infinite uncreate then his power is inexhaustable and everything he does requires zero effort, so anything less then maximal effort is proof against his existence, his love, and alleged care, that certain sectarian groups of human beings say he has for us.

I have no problem with the idea of god - I have a problem with the idea of god being divorced from reasoned analysis.

#14 Guest_Colter_*

Guest_Colter_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 July 2005 - 12:46 PM

Colter,

You miss the point entirely, look at what you just wrote:

... You need to realize that man hasn't created anything, he simply combines elements, materials and energies that already exist.


Exactly, but my point was god could have combined them even better then us, so whenever we find ourselves with some new technology thats better then the claims of old gods we have a right to reject those old gods simply because we're not omnipotent and we're outscoring those old gods.

Remember God has been around for an eternity of time, exists transcendant of time and place, so there is really no excuse for god to use archaic ancient methods of mankind to communicate to us, there is just no excuse what-so-ever. Not to mention you keep forgetting that the sun will all kill us when it's fuel is gone, not exactly stellar (*laugh*) design. God is the infinite uncreate then his power is inexhaustable and everything he does requires zero effort, so anything less then maximal effort is proof against his existence, his love, and alleged care, that certain sectarian groups of human beings say he has for us.

I have no problem with the idea of god - I have a problem with the idea of god being divorced from reasoned analysis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Mordicai,

I did understand your point but what you seem to be overlooking is that Gods wisdom is infinitely greater than ours, if he knows the totality of our life experience to be the best way for us to learn things through experience, things that we could not learn otherwise then "his way" is the "best way." That is my faith, I trust that Gods way is the best way, that the things which I do not understand in time I will come to understand in eternity. Jesus instructed us to become as little children in our trust in the father.

All this rebellion and questioning is akin to a 1st grader arguing with a college physics professor about why we need to go through all the intervening education to get to graduate school.

I can't tell my 4.5 year old daughter about quantum physics, she simply does not have adequate intellectual development or frames of reference to understand it. If I were to try to explain quantum physics to her I would have to dumb it down so much that it would practically be unrecognizable. Now, if she took my "dumbed down" explanation with her until she was 18 years old and refused any "new information" than it would look silly and untrue. That's what we have with the bible and religion, people crystallizing old explanations, explanations for a more primitive and ignorant mind and calling them "untrue" and silly because we have grown beyond them.

How often did Jesus say to the apostles, " how long shall I bare with you?" He kept trying to explain spiritual things but they insisted upon interpreting them based on "old belief " systems, the remnant's of past " dumbed down" explanations.

You have rightly realized inconsistancies with the "God of the OT" but remeber that's the inconsistancy of man not REVELATION.

Revelation is a technique whereby ages upon ages of time are saved in the necessary work of sorting and sifting the errors of evolution from the truths of spirit acquirement.

Science deals with facts; religion is concerned only with values. Through enlightened philosophy the mind endeavors to unite the meanings of both facts and values, thereby arriving at a concept of complete reality. Remember that science is the domain of knowledge, philosophy the realm of wisdom, and religion the sphere of the faith experience. But religion, nonetheless, presents two phases of manifestation:

1. Evolutionary religion. The experience of primitive worship, the religion which is a mind derivative.

2. Revealed religion. The universe attitude which is a spirit derivative; the assurance of, and belief in, the conservation of eternal realities, the survival of personality, and the eventual attainment of the cosmic Deity, whose purpose has made all this possible. It is a part of the plan of the universe that, sooner or later, evolutionary religion is destined to receive the spiritual expansion of revelation.


Because your world is generally ignorant of origins, even of physical origins, it has appeared to be wise from time to time to provide instruction in cosmology. And always has this made trouble for the future. The laws of revelation hamper us greatly by their proscription of the impartation of unearned or premature knowledge. Any cosmology presented as a part of revealed religion is destined to be outgrown in a very short time. Accordingly, future students of such a revelation are tempted to discard any element of genuine religious truth it may contain because they discover errors on the face of the associated cosmologies therein presented.

Mankind should understand that we who participate in the revelation of truth are very rigorously limited by the instructions of our superiors. We are not at liberty to anticipate the scientific discoveries of a thousand years. Revelators must act in accordance with the instructions which form a part of the revelation mandate. We see no way of overcoming this difficulty, either now or at any future time. We full well know that, while the historic facts and religious truths of this series of revelatory presentations will stand on the records of the ages to come, within a few short years many of our statements regarding the physical sciences will stand in need of revision in consequence of additional scientific developments and new discoveries. These new developments we even now foresee, but we are forbidden to include such humanly undiscovered facts in the revelatory records. Let it be made clear that revelations are not necessarily inspired. The cosmology of these revelations is not inspired. It is limited by our permission for the co-ordination and sorting of present-day knowledge. While divine or spiritual insight is a gift, human wisdom must evolve.


#15 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 22 July 2005 - 05:08 PM

Righteous and wicked are defined as those who have known and sought after (righteous), or disregarde (wicked), the law of God.

None who have not known the law of God can meet this description.  See Daniel 12:2 for a clear statement that the resurrection is limited, not universal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I thought the good are those who are justified by faith.

John 5:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes him who sent me, has eternal life; he does not come into judgment, but has passed from death to life.

Hence they do not go to judgment. The wicked though, do go to judgment. See;

John 5:29 and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment.

In this context, only the wicked will go to judgment.


Do you notice that Revelation speaks of two ressurections? It appears to me that Revelation disagrees with the CD view that all at raised at the beginning of the 1,000 years.

Edited by Anastasis, 22 July 2005 - 05:15 PM.


#16 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 22 July 2005 - 05:25 PM

Doesn't this pretty much says that it is predestined as to whether you will be resurrected (and judged) since God has foreknowledge who will and who will not grow up enough to have the opportunity to learn and accept the truth?

No, I don't think it's predestined.

Which brings up a question, which is, why would God let be born darling little babies that he knew would be lost? Children that because of a misfortune out of their control will be lost? How is that  love?


They have their life, and they live it the way they chooose. How can they be rewarded or punished on the basis of something of which they had no knowledge?

Never mind darling little babies, there are plenty of grown men and women who will never come to a knowledge of God's truth either. They live their life as they please, and they die without being called to account for it. That seems very reasonable to me.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


"Survival of the fittest". No, there is a purpose in the acts of the wicked "animal men" as JT would have called them.

Psalm 83:17 Let them be put to shame and dismayed for ever; let them perish in disgrace. 18 Let them know that thou alone, whose name is the LORD, art the Most High over all the earth.

Be patient with the sorry "for ever" wording and see that there's a purpose in the perishing in disgrace. The prodigal son was perished aka lost. Contrary to the horrid claim; they will indeed all know God.

Isa 26:10 If favor is shown to the wicked, he does not learn righteousness; in the land of uprightness he deals perversely and does not see the majesty of the LORD.

Sounds like the wicked is in school. Now unless you think Paul is pulling their leg; the teaching is clear. All men are God's sons under upbringing;

Acts 17:26 And he made from one every nation of men to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel after him and find him. Yet he is not far from each one of us, 28 for 'In him we live and move and have our being'; as even some of your poets have said, 'For we are indeed his offspring.' 29 Being then God's offspring, we ought not to think that the Deity is like gold, or silver, or stone, a representation by the art and imagination of man. 30 The times of ignorance God overlooked, but now he commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because he has fixed a day on which he will judge the world in righteousness by a man whom he has appointed, and of this he has given assurance to all men by raising him from the dead."


All men are God's lost sons, unless Paul is pulling their legs. Judgment is just a path on the way to universal justification :witchhunt:

Now see something rad:

1 Tim 1:8 Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 9 understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,

1 Cor 15:24 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. 25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. 26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death. (...) 28 When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to him who put all things under him, that God may be everything to every one.


So once all reign aka law is over, then God will be all in all and all will be holy. Biblebelievers realize that these events go further into time than the Rev 21-22, where all sorts of reign still goes on :first:

Edited by Anastasis, 22 July 2005 - 05:31 PM.


#17 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 22 July 2005 - 05:35 PM

[Do you notice that Revelation speaks of two ressurections? It appears to me that Revelation disagrees with the CD view that all at raised at the beginning of the 1,000 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



The CD view is there are two resurrections... The first for the responsible who died previous to the return of Christ, and the second for those that die during the millenial reign of Christ.

#18 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 22 July 2005 - 05:40 PM

[Do you notice that Revelation speaks of two ressurections? It appears to me that Revelation disagrees with the CD view that all at raised at the beginning of the 1,000 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



The CD view is there are two resurrections... The first for the responsible who died previous to the return of Christ, and the second for those that die during the millenial reign of Christ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi! I know. Yet John places the grand resurrection in only one place, after the 1,000 years. I think the CD view takes a symbolic passage and then add modifications to it. The JWs and others do the same thing. I think it should be left alone and it should be considered if this is; 1. a literal record, 2. speaking of a literal 1,000 years.

Edited by Anastasis, 22 July 2005 - 05:41 PM.


#19 Matt Smith

Matt Smith

    Mu

  • Christadelphian
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,737 posts

Posted 23 July 2005 - 02:29 PM

[Do you notice that Revelation speaks of two ressurections? It appears to me that Revelation disagrees with the CD view that all at raised at the beginning of the 1,000 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



The CD view is there are two resurrections... The first for the responsible who died previous to the return of Christ, and the second for those that die during the millenial reign of Christ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi! I know. Yet John places the grand resurrection in only one place, after the 1,000 years. I think the CD view takes a symbolic passage and then add modifications to it. The JWs and others do the same thing. I think it should be left alone and it should be considered if this is; 1. a literal record, 2. speaking of a literal 1,000 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Care to clarify a little...?

#20 Anastasis

Anastasis

    Lambda

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,872 posts

Posted 24 July 2005 - 12:52 PM

[Do you notice that Revelation speaks of two ressurections? It appears to me that Revelation disagrees with the CD view that all at raised at the beginning of the 1,000 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>



The CD view is there are two resurrections... The first for the responsible who died previous to the return of Christ, and the second for those that die during the millenial reign of Christ.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi! I know. Yet John places the grand resurrection in only one place, after the 1,000 years. I think the CD view takes a symbolic passage and then add modifications to it. The JWs and others do the same thing. I think it should be left alone and it should be considered if this is; 1. a literal record, 2. speaking of a literal 1,000 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Care to clarify a little...?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Hi! Well what does the record tell us? That all are raised at the beginning of the thousand years? That there are two resurrections involving both rightious and unrightious? Does the Bible call the grand resurrection involving the white throne the second resurrection? The answer to all these are no.

Does the scenario in chapters 21-22 truly indicate, that the works of God with the unrightious are finished? I do not think so. If so, how come people are in the lake of fire? And above all, this collides totally with both the CD view and the popular view, how come, I repeat, how come we are told of inhabitants outside the city. Supposingly, these were all done away with. Note it's indicated that someone may be trying to come in, who can not do so.

Rev 22:14 Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city. 15 For without are dogs, and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and maketh a lie.


Let's compare to another sort of language;

Zef 3:8 Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the LORD, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy. 9 For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.

In both cases, a literal approach is nonsense. If not, then why are the baddies around after the white throne and how can the people become pure after all the earth is burned up. I think CDs would agree the language of Zef 3 is symbolic. Now how come they disagree that the language of hyper symbolic Revelation is not also symbolic in the last chapters?

I have not always been so certain about how to understand the last chapters of Revelation, far from it. But I have always been deeply worried about the literalistic approach to it that must people have today.

Edited by Anastasis, 24 July 2005 - 12:54 PM.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users