Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device.
You can download and read online A Commented Study Bible With Cross-References - Book 66C - Revelation 15-22 file PDF Book only if you are registered here.
And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with A Commented Study Bible With Cross-References - Book 66C - Revelation 15-22 book.
Happy reading A Commented Study Bible With Cross-References - Book 66C - Revelation 15-22 Bookeveryone.
Download file Free Book PDF A Commented Study Bible With Cross-References - Book 66C - Revelation 15-22 at Complete PDF Library.
This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats.
Here is The CompletePDF Book Library.
It's free to register here to get Book file PDF A Commented Study Bible With Cross-References - Book 66C - Revelation 15-22 Pocket Guide.
Libro Revelation Chapters del Autor Jerome Cameron Goodwin por la The Commented Bible series is a comprehensive and detailed verse by It is designed as a personal, Bible study and group study platform for learning the entire Bible. a wealth of applicable cross-reference scriptures, background material.
Table of contents
- Daystar Publishing - Products And Services
- Products And Services
- The Commented Bible: Book 66C - Revelation
It is a valuable reference for Christians who want to study deeply the true teachings of the Bible, which writings are the basis of all true faith.
It is designed for the layman, and does not require any pre-existing knowledge of the Bible to properly understand it. It is designed to be a simple and effective means for anyone who is wanting to know accurately what the Bible teaches to learn it. It was written to bring together Christians into a unity of thought, by bringing together all other pertinent scriptural information in one place for study and meditation.
It can be listened to a book, used as a reference tool, or as the medium for group studies and open discussions. Book 66C - Revelation By: Jerome Cameron Goodwin Narrated by: In the end, the righteous will receive their inheritance, i. They will inherit eternal life No evangelical denies the scriptural fact that Christ will return bodily at some point in history. But the precise manner in which this will occur and the immediate results of his return have been variously debated. The questions surrounding the manner of his return have arisen in light of two groups of texts, one which talks about an imminent return i.
Passages such as Matthew In any case, it is these latter passages which seem to indicate that in reality his coming cannot be imminent, for certain signs must precede it. Several solutions have been offered to synthesize these data. Now it has been typical of many liberal theologians—concerned as they are with stressing the ethical and universal aspects of the kingdom of God within societal structures—to solve this tension by simply affirming that both Jesus and Paul were wrong about the second advent.
They were trapped in an outmoded and unscientific Jewish apocalypticism and were simply wrong about a bodily return, and therefore incorrect in their claim that any so-called return would be imminent. First, it goes without saying that the worldview of the Biblical writers is quite different than the liberal interpreters of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
The former allows for divine intervention and miracle, whereas the latter has reduced Christianity to a nice nave? But, what is left is not Christianity at all, but a powerless religion of some sort. Be that as it may, the bodily return of Christ is clearly taught in Scripture e. We might also note too that the way in which the Biblical writers viewed prophecy is important as well. In this way, i. In summary, there are better and more scripturally sensitive solutions to this problem than those offered by various strands within Liberalism. Some evangelical scholars have attempted to resolve the tension in these two groups of texts by claiming that the coming of Christ is not an imminent event, but must be preceded by certain other events.
In short, Berkhof argues that all the texts that speak of an imminent return should be read in light of the passages that speak about delay. Not all, however, have agreed with him. But surely such signs were given to teach us that his coming is right at the door! Some dispensationalists have argued that the reason for the tension is because the first set of passages i. Thus the rapture of the church is imminent while the second coming—a different event—will be preceded by many signs and follow the rapture by seven years in many schemes. This view has the strength of allowing both sets of passages to speak clearly with no contradiction.
Another solution is to argue that the imminency passages are not speaking objectively about the timing of his coming, but rather subjectively about our experience of his coming. So, even if his return cannot occur until after certain events, there will nonetheless be certain people who are not ready and who will experience his coming as a thief in the night.
Thus these passages are not saying anything directly about the timing of his return, but only how we should live in light of his return. This solution obviously stresses a very important element in the passages, viz. Another solution argues that all the signs have occurred and Christ could come back at any moment. This runs into two problems, however. First, the doctrine of the imminent return of Christ—if taught in Scripture and this view supposes that it is —was being taught at the same basic time as the doctrine of delay.
This means that imminency was not correct until the events were fulfilled; it was incorrect when it was first taught. But this brings the inspiration of Scripture into question Second, many of the events such as the preaching of the gospel and the great tribulation seem to have not yet been fulfilled yet.
A final view argues that his return can be understood as imminent, if we realize that while it is unlikely, the events preceding his return, i. The strength of this view is that both groups of texts are allowed to speak and it does admit a degree of healthy uncertainty in our interpretation of many of the relevant passages. The admitted weakness in this position is that, as we stated above, it is difficult to imagine that the great tribulation and the kind of Jewish response envisioned in AD when Paul wrote Romans have occurred. Some argue that the saints, together with the Lord, immediately return to the earth.
They say that the term was often used in reference to a special delegation going outside the city gates in order to escort an approaching dignitary back into the city.follow url
Daystar Publishing - Products And Services
This, they infer, suggests that Christ and his saints will immediately return to earth. Further, the technical force of the term, if indeed it is present, does not require that the Lord return immediately to earth, only that he do so at some point. This, they point out, will occur after the seven year tribulation. Obviously, these questions are closely linked with further questions about the timing of the rapture—questions to which we now turn. The purpose of this section is not to argue for one position over another, but simply to present the various positions and comment on them briefly.
Each position mounts exegetical and theological support and is held by devout and informed lay people and scholars within evangelicalism. Further, the use of a label to identify one group in distinction to another is the bane of summarization and generalization, but which remains helpful as long as readers understand that within each camp there are major and minor differences among various proponents and between camps there are many other important areas of agreement. First, there are certain scholars who argue that the rapture will occur before the Great Tribulation begins; thus they are referred to as pretribulationalists.
Dispensational, pretribulational scholars such as Walvoord, Pentecost, Ryrie, et al. The church, however, will be raptured before this period begins Rev 3: A minor offshoot of the pretribulational rapture argument is the partial rapture position. In this scheme, proponents argue that only the faithful in Christ will experience the rapture before the Great Tribulation; the rest will be raptured during the Tribulation.
So the rapture is viewed more as a reward for the faithful than as deliverance for the church, per se. Second, other scholars have argued that the rapture of the church will occur after the Great Tribulation; thus they are referred to as posttribulationalists. Among the various theologians who advocate this position there is difference of opinion over whether there is a definite period of Great Tribulation though all admit that the church has been in tribulation since her beginning. Barton Payne argued that there would be no definite time of tribulation while George Eldon Ladd argued for a period of three and one- half or 7 years of tribulation before Christ returned.
Both were in agreement, however, that the rapture would occur only after tribulation whether general tribulation or the Great Tribulation. The third major interpretive position regarding the rapture of the church is the midtribulational position; those who hold this view are thus referred to as midtribulationalists. In this position the rapture will take place in the middle of the seven year tribulation before the wrath of God is truly poured out in the last three and one-half years before the battle of Armageddon.
Proponents argue that the events of Matt Postmillennialism is the doctrine which affirms that through the work of the Spirit in Christian preaching and teaching in the present time of the church before the second advent the world at large will eventually be evangelized and won to Christ. This will turn out in a world characterized by universal peace instead of strife, universal prosperity instead of inequality, godliness instead of evil, and so on, though the time period may be more or less than a thousand years since, according to some postmill interpreters, the years of Revelation Thus there is a focus in postmillennarian thought on the present aspects of the kingdom of God with the result that through Christian influence many economic, educational and social ills will be resolved.
Gentry summarizes the postmillennial position well:. Postmillennialism expects the proclaiming of the Spirit-blessed gospel of Jesus Christ to win the vast majority of human beings to salvation in the present age. After an extensive era of such conditions the Lord will return visibly, bodily, and in great glory, ending history with a general resurrection and the great judgment of all humankind. Postmillennialism or postmillennial kind of statements in one form or another, it is argued, can be found as early as Eusebius of Caesarea AD and Origen.
Strong , president of Rochester Theological Seminary was also an able American exponent of a postmillennial reading of scripture. In my opinion there are many good and helpful emphases in postmillennial thought. This is good and commendable and to be found in varying degrees in other eschatological systems of thought as well. Second, though it has been questioned in the past, there is, among most postmillennialists, a genuine desire to read postmillennial doctrine out of scripture rather than into it.
But there are weaknesses with this view. Indeed, so great are the problems that it is difficult to maintain a postmillennial reading of Scripture. The most damaging criticism offered by opponents, is the fact that the system as a whole is not able to come to grips with all of scriptural teaching regarding the eschaton and none of its exegetical points seem to lead explicitly to postmillennialism. Further, the passages that are often used to argue for postmillennialism, some of which Gentry uses, can be easily and more profitably read in another light.
Modern Premillennial theologians strongly disagree with their postmillennial brothers and sisters over the issue of the millennium, what it will look like, and how it will come about. For them, the idea that the church will bring a golden age of righteousness and peace through its Spirit-inspired preaching is scripturally unfounded.
According to the premillennialists this will only happen in connection with the second coming of Christ, when the King is visibly and bodily present.
Products And Services
To this extent they would also disagree with amillennial interpreters. But, again, this is not to be equated with the millennial kingdom when Christ will reign personally and bodily on the earth. Many premillennialists have a special place for the Jewish people in the eschaton, based in several cases on passages like Romans where it seems, especially in Dispensational premillennialists argue for a much more pronounced role for national not just ethnic Israel in the end see below. Premillennial readings of scripture stem back to the early church which was for the first three centuries largely premillennial.
Christian leaders such as Justin Martyr and Irenaeus 75 were premillennialists, believing that a golden age of blessing and the renewal of Jerusalem would occur at the second coming. But the Alexandrian school, led by such men as Clement and Origen, were opposed to such Jewish, materialistic views of the future.
It was really not until the nineteenth century that premillennialism began to make a comeback, especially within British and American expressions of Christianity. A key passage for all premillennialists is Revelation They argue that it teaches a literal reign of Christ upon the earth, though not all are in agreement that it must be exactly one-thousand years.
Detractors have pointed out that premillennialists have only this one passage upon which to base their system, but this is simply misleading e. Amillennialists generally argue that the first resurrection But it is difficult to see how the two uses of the term in the same context, without any apparent contrary indication, can mean two different things. Further, a less strained reading of Revelation These are not the souls of the dead reigning with Christ in heaven, but dead saints physically resurrected to reign with him on the earth see Rev 5: In terms of eschatology, Dispensational premillennialism differs from historic premillennialism primarily in its insistence that Israel as a nation will be regathered at the end times, converted, and the land promises made with her fulfilled in the millennial kingdom e.
Thus, the point is not that many Jews will be saved in the end, but that the nation of Israel will exist and will inherit the promises made to national Israel in the Old Testament. Previous forms of dispensationalism made these kinds of distinctions in keeping with the insistence that God had two peoples: This tenant cannot be maintained in light of NT evidence to the contrary cf.
So then, within an overarching soteriological equality and unity joining the people of God, there remains the possibility of structural differences not inequalities in any sense of access to God in the millennium. It is not unreasonable, then, that God should deal with Israel in this way and such an interpretation appears to reflect a reasonable reading of OT texts as well as NT passages such as Romans , especially This, however, is to view the system from a purely negative point of view. The amillennial scheme of end time events is really quite simple and straightforward.
Lewis and Demarest summarize it well:. The amillennial order of events is: Amillennialism thus affirms that at the end of the age there will be one return of Christ, one resurrection and one judgment. Amillennialists give several reasons to support their eschatological views. First—and these are in no particular order—there is apparently only one passage in all of the Bible that can possibly be adduced to demonstrate an earthly thousand year reign of Christ, i. No other text in the Old Testament or New Testament affirms such an idea, so it is best not to understand Revelation Third, the binding of Satan referred to in Revelation 20 is consistent with what Jesus said would happen during the period of the church e.
Besides, scripture teaches only one literal resurrection e. Fifth, against many premillennialists, amillennialists generally affirm that there is no place for Israel in the future. Several things can be said in response to these arguments. First, even if Revelation 20 were the only passage in the Bible that taught an earthly, thousand year reign of Christ, that should be enough to convince us.
The Bible need only affirm a doctrine in one place, so that when properly understood, it should be regarded as authoritative. Further, there are many OT passages that can be better viewed as referring to an earthly reign of Messiah before the eternal state rather than as a reference to his eternal reign in heaven Isa There are also other New Testament passages that can be reasonably read in this light 1 Cor Second, it is true that the genre of Revelation is apocalyptic—though this is not the only form of literature in the book—and contains much symbolism.
But this fact does not preclude an earthly kingdom in Revelation 20 and a straightforward reading of this text. Though genre is always an indispensable tool for interpreting, informed opinion on all sides of this debate demonstrates that appeals to genre are inconclusive. What is more important in this case is the immediate context and the actual words that are used in Revelation And, it is here, that the premillennial position is simpler, less strained and therefore more probable.
The context describes, albeit in apocalyptic language, several important historical facts. Is the binding of Satan literal? But it can be reasonably asked whether these texts should be regarded as referring to the same event. It has been debated, but a straightforward reading of the context of Revelation 20 would argue that what happens in Revelation 20 follows chronologically what happened in Revelation 19, i. Therefore, if this is true, the binding of Satan in Revelation 20 cannot be the same event as that referred to in the gospels during the earthly reign of the messiah.
But there are other more cogent arguments to demonstrate that the binding in the gospels is not the same as that in Revelation. First, it is said in Revelation Thus the portrait in the gospels is quite different, too disparate it would seem to be the same. According to 2 Corinthians 4: But the binding in Revelation is much more absolute than the gospels or epistles will grant. So it is more reasonable to conclude that Matthew 12 and Luke 10 do not refer to the same event as Revelation This does not mean they are not related, however.
One of the reasons they do this is to avoid bracketing the period off with two bodily resurrections which would seem to point to an earthly reign after the return of Christ. Again, these are not the souls of the dead reigning with Christ in heaven, but dead saints physically resurrected to reign with him on the earth see the promise in Rev 5: It is ultimately in the Biblical recognition that there is only one people of God for all time with a soteriological equality binding them together.
But it has an inherent weakness in that it does not recognize structural political differences present in eschatological texts.
- How to Stop Bucking in Horses.
- Cup of Hope, Reflections from my heart.
- Hirelings: African American Workers and Free Labor in Early Maryland;
Indeed, at face value, nations are still regarded as nations in certain texts referring to the eternal state cf. The Bible teaches that there will be a resurrection of all people and that all will be judged John 5: Though some liberal theologians have often denied the fact, it is quite certain that the Bible teaches a final judgment, after which individuals will go to their allotted destinies, i.
The Lord judged king Saul and rejected him as king over Israel God repeatedly judged the nation of Israel for their sin e. He also judges the nations of the earth for their continuous sin and rebellion Isa ; Jer ; Ezek ; Dan Though his ways in judgment are not always easy to discern or accept Hab , he is nonetheless the just judge of all the earth Gen In the New Testament, Paul makes it clear that God still judges today.
For 82 the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of people who suppress the truth by their unrighteousness…. People and nations today continually suppress the knowledge of God, deliberately turning from knowledge of the true God to idolatry the worship of money, sex, power in its various forms, etc.
As a result, just as the Israelites demanded that God give them a king, so people today demand that they be left to their own devices; they demand autonomy.
The Commented Bible: Book 66C - Revelation
Therefore God gives them over to their sin cf. The fallout involves escalating wickedness, sorrow, grief, pain, and misery. Man is by nature as incurably religious as he is morally and spiritually foolish. So God has been and continues to judge individuals and nations for their sin. He does it retributively as well as therapeutically i. But all these judgments will find their culmination and vindication at the final judgment. At that time every mouth will be silenced Rom 3: The sheep will go into eternal life and the goats will go into eternal punishment The point is, there will come a day when there will be an irreversible and final reckoning.
For he has set a day hJmevra , hemera when he will judge the world with justice by the man he has appointed. He has given proof of this to all men by raising him from the dead. Perhaps the passage that speaks most clearly to the certainty of final and irrevocable judgment is Revelation Earth and sky fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. Another book was opened, which is the book of life.
The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. The lake of fire is the second death. There are many indications that John is speaking about the final judgment in Revelation Though virtually every evangelical commentator on scripture agrees with the doctrine of a final judgment, some would argue that it actually involves three different judgments: Others would argue that all these judgments are really just one judgment, i. But there is more to the final judgment than just its facticity. First, although it is obvious that God will be the judge, within the councils of the trinity, the Father has determined to give all judgment to the Son John 5: Further, the Son will judge wisely and justly 2 Tim 4: Second, both men and angels will be judged Acts Judges and the Israelite nation as a whole to judge other nations e.
Thus, the saints will judge angels and people in the final judgment because this is a function of the restored image. In another way of speaking, believers will judge the living and the dead because of their inseparable connection to Christ the Judge, their personal share in his kingdom with its power and authority cf. In an important sense, and to an important degree, we will be just like him in our glorified states and will know his mind on these issues in a way only faintly grasped now cf.
Third, we said that all men will be judged. Therefore, Christians will be judged as well. Paul, speaking of believers in Romans For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, so that each one may be paid back according to what he has done while in the body, whether good or bad. If we are justified, why then are we judged? It seems that the idea of justification precludes entering into judgment.
But the problem is not as insurmountable as first appears. It is true that the doctrine of justification includes both the idea of eternal forgiveness as well as the eternal possession of the righteousness of Christ. Though some evangelicals have spurned the doctrine of rewards for believers it seems fairly certain that the Bible does indeed teach it:. Each builder must choose with care how to build on it. Again, Jesus talks about reward for faithful service Luke Again, the point about degree of reward seems to be clearly taught in Colossians 3: Thus, according to these texts Christians will be judged to determine their degree of reward or the measure of their inheritance e.
This does not mean that throughout eternity men will suffer pangs of conscience for what they should have done with the grace of God given them while on earth. In the eternal state there will be neither death or mourning or crying or pain Rev Therefore, the problem with the doctrine of rewards is not that the scripture does not teach it.
This is a similar kind of struggle we face with other clearly biblical doctrines, e. Some have suggested that the degree of reward is known only to God and the person who receives it. But the bottom line is that we will each be rewarded for our service, though we know very little about the precise nature of these rewards. Nonetheless, rewards are a source of motivation to holiness and godly living. This, of course, is the way in which they are used throughout Scripture Luke They are not the only source of motivation for the Christian cf.
They are one of several means of grace the Lord uses to sanctify us and move us along in the Christian life cf. There are a number of different views regarding the fate of the finally impenitent. There are a number of passages in scripture that appear to suggest universalism. Three important and valid hermeneutical considerations must be mentioned at this point. It is true that we all come to scripture, bringing along with us our presuppositions and preunderstandings.
But it is not true that we all allow our presuppositions to influence us to the same degree. In many universalist interpretations of Scripture, it seems that a priori concerns have reached the level of agenda to the point of smothering texts which contradict such agendas. Second, any text cited to substantiate any one particular doctrine must be read in a way consistent with its immediate linguistic and historical setting, as well as its broader biblical context. For example, Col 1: The two ideas are related, but they are not the same thing.
In terms of 1 Tim 4: According to Hebrews Again, the love of God is not a bulldozer that disregards human decisions and indiscriminately piles people up on the side of His grace. Texts like Romans 5: Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. Therefore, it would seem that Paul is espousing universalism in 5: To argue for universalism in this text, however, is to neglect other key Pauline texts 2 Thess 1: It is sufficient for all men, but only those who receive it by faith, reign in life!
Also, universalism requires the questionable premise that Paul is arguing in 5: But this is certainly not his point. He is arguing, rather, that in the same way as Adam directly affects all those connected to him i. Before we look at it, however, it must be noted that as far as supporting universalism goes, it suffers from the same fate as Rom 5: That is, it was written by Paul and, therefore, has to be legitimately reconciled with texts like 2 Thess 1: He makes this clear when in vv.
Paul is not holding out a universalistic hope here, but rather the hope proper to those who trust in God concerning the preaching about the resurrected Christ 1 Cor Third, there are many texts which speak of judgment and hell as being eternal. At the present time, two primary views regarding the nature of the punishment of hell are being advanced within Evangelicalism, that is, among those who have a very high regard for scripture and the necessity of personal faith and the new birth. Several things are important to note in this discussion. First, this is not, as some have erroneously argued, a debate directly related to inerrancy.
It is rather a question about the best exegesis of that Word and the resultant theology. Second, this debate is not about whether the wicked will be judged or not. Both sides agree that this will be the case. The debate is about the nature of that judgment. Fourth, let us take to heart that this is a discussion about hell and the awful judgment to come upon those apart from Christ, i. As Stott has reminded us, let us mourn with Jeremiah and weep with Paul over the ultimate destiny of those who refuse to know and love Christ. Warfield has outlined annihilationism in three major groups: In other words, the life of the person is impossible without the body since the life-principle is inextricably connected to the physical organism.
At death all people simply pass out of existence. Conditional mortality , generally speaking, argues that people do not naturally possess immortality, but must receive it from God. All other people, i. Annihilationism proper , in contrast to conditional immortality, builds on the idea of the person as naturally immortal. Thus at some point—whether immediately at death, the judgment after a general resurrection, or after some determined period of suffering—those apart from Christ, will be annihilated; God himself will bring their very existence to an end. We are now ready to discuss arguments for and against conditional immortality hereafter, CI and traditionalism.
CI has received increasing support among certain evangelicals in recent years, including: Edward William Fudge, 95 John W. Wenham, 96 Stephen H. Is CI able to stand on exegetical and theological grounds superior to the traditional view and is it thus to be preferred? The following is an interaction with some of the most popular and strongest arguments in favor of CI.
Stott also argues that the nouns apwleiva , apoleia e. This is true for at least three reasons: Several of these instances are important and require brief comment. This is evident in the lost apollumi son of Luke The son was destroyed or ruined , if you will, in that he was no longer in right relationship with his father, as evidenced by his lifestyle. However, he certainly did not pass out of existence, as his return to the father clearly indicates. Fourth , a Christian can be said to have been destroyed and yet be in perfect physical health and still have a relationship with God!
This is true in both Romans This is probably the point behind Matthew In this text Jesus is not making a comment about existence vs. We also see that in some cases, like Romans A return to God begins the process of undoing the destruction that was incurred. Each of these cases is religiously colored and refers either to the destruction of the flesh 1 Cor 5: The term kolasis occurs in Matthew For example, in reference to Matthew But how are we to understand this metaphorical language involving fire?
Either hell changes over time from one to the other or there are parts of hell that have fire and parts that are pure darkness. Despite the fact that such interpretations seem ridiculous, they: The simplest and best explanation is to see the language as metaphorical, pointing to horrible realities, much of which probably lies beyond comprehension.
Our expectation would be the opposite: First , it suppresses contrary evidence; it is not warranted by the immediate context. The rest of Revelation Thus, the imagery of fire suggests agony and torment, not extinction of being as Stott argues. Second , it agrees, not just formally, but materially with Revelation Advocates of CI often point out that many exegetes have unconsciously imported into their reading of relevant texts an unbiblical anthropology stemming from Plato and the doctrine of the immortality of the soul.
Thus Clark Pinnock argues:. If a biblical reader approached the text with the assumption that souls are naturally immortal, would they not be compelled to interpret texts that speak of the wicked being destroyed to mean that they are tortured forever, since according to that presupposition souls cannot go out of existence italics mine? Pinnock goes on to argue, as Fudge and others have done, that immortality is something only God possesses 1 Tim 6: God can, however, bestow immortality upon his people 1 Cor But all the rest of humanity, that is, those outside a saving relationship with Christ, are by nature mortal and cannot exist forever.
Therefore, if they cannot exist forever, they cannot suffer consciously forever. But this argument, as presented by Pinnock, is fallacious for at least two reasons: This is confirmed when we consider two important differences between the two. But no Christian view holds to the immortality of the soul before the existence of creation neither the traducian nor creationist view.
- Histoires de mer et de pirates (52 histoires) (French Edition)!
- More from the same.
- Santo Thomas de Castilla ( Guatemala ), escale de croisière (French Edition)?
- Family of Oz (Royal Magician of Oz Trilogy Book 3).
Second, the Greek view often looks as if it entails the idea that the soul is naturally or inherently immortal, but no informed Christian view argues that either. Rather, what is argued is that God, by his free decision, has decided to render all people immortal and to uphold their being by his word cf. That debate must be adjudicated on scriptural grounds, something Pinnock does not do. Another important consideration is this regard is the issue of resurrection.
Jesus states in John 5: It seems strange and, though not absolutely logically impossible, that this leads to their annihilation or their simply passing out of existence. The resurrection would seem to guarantee their eternal existence. This seems especially appropriate because of the parallel with the resurrection of the righteous which has eternal life in view which in the minimum involves never-ending existence. God is boundlessly merciful, loving and forgiving. Every Christian, whether a week old in the faith, or a veteran, knows this to be true. Indeed, the longer a person is in the faith, the more they ought to realize this truth.
But the traditional view of hell pictures a God who tortures people endlessly, with no hope of restitution. This is cruel and sadistic according to at least one evangelical writer. Several things need to be said in response to this. First , it is admittedly difficult to reconcile the love of God with eternal, conscious punishment. This is especially true when one thinks of the love of God as expressed in the cross.
I think that all sides recognize this. Second , even though God is love, he is also holy. Third , it would seem that the way in which conditionalists talk of the incompatibility of eternal, conscious punishment with divine love, God should not be permitted to judge anyone at all. In other words, conditionalism is not insulated from the problem nor is it any less impaled on the horns of the dilemma.
While we may have an inkling, we are in no place to suggest that such a great love spurned will not result in eternal, conscious punishment.