Resurrection and hell

[Melchizedek]

I’m really glad you asked the question here too, as many others here are much more knowledgable than me.

To be honest I haven’t looked at the 2nd death passages recently… I found a friend suggested, “The second death being the one where all those who had to endure “hell” for rehabilitative purposes finally experience that death to self/sin that those already redeemed have experienced earlier??”

to which Jason Pratt agreed, so I’m guessing once I look into it, I would come to the same conclusion What is the “second” death?

I thought the following put forward some interesting points too What is the “Second Death”?

I think there’s only 1 physical death & resurrection for everyone, the 2nd is the spiritual death/destruction of sin in the fire of God (through the Holy Spirit helping people come to repentance & faith in the work of Christ - who defeated sin on the cross i.e. going thru hell doesn’t bypass Christ).

I think people are only ultimately destroyed in Paul’s “old man” sense e.g. Col 3:5-11 i.e. the sinful “man” (nature) in each of us will be completely destroyed.

I think that’s a good way to look at it, and the explanation I personally lean toward as well. One way or another, we have to take part in the death and resurrection that Jesus experienced on our behalf in order to have new life. Unless the seed (carnal/ fleshly/ soulish man) falls into the ground and dies, the inner part cannot grow into a healthy plant expressing the life within.

[Theopologetics]

Chris is pretty awesome.

Thanks, Jason! Means a lot, even if we disagree strongly in this area.

[dirtboy]

There’s something in this debate that I don’t understand: the scriptures are silent on many, many things. Even though there is much prophecy in the bible, it still tells us very little about what happens after we die. In fact, there are very few scriptures that speak about Christians living for eternity in heaven. I have a book called, “The Meaning of the Millennium”, that gives the four prevalent views about the millennium and they are very different from one another: all by believing Christians. If we were to make an actual puzzle out of the scriptures, them being pieces of a complete puzzle, we would be missing many, many pieces of the picture. Now the scriptures don’t tell us very much about what God does at death and judgment. Yet in other places the bible is very clear about the actual outcome of events, such as in Colossians chapter 1. Yet those with a traditional interpretation seem to think that the lacking data is a fatal flaw in a UR interpretation of scripture. The traditional understanding has many holes as well, many pieces of the puzzle missing, and the traditionalist is very comfortable with what he is lacking, but thinks it is winning blow when it comes to Universal Reconciliation. It seems like a double standard to me. I have no idea how God is going to sort this whole thing out, yet he has still provided tons of scriptures that create a UR framework for understanding the bible. I see the ECT position as actually the weakest in explaining the whole of scripture. I place the annihilation theory in the middle, and the UR as strongest. They all have weak points, no doubt, but ECT is the weakest

[corpselight]

There’s something in this debate that I don’t understand: the scriptures are silent on many, many things. Even though there is much prophecy in the bible, it still tells us very little about what happens after we die. In fact, there are very few scriptures that speak about Christians living for eternity in heaven. I have a book called, “The Meaning of the Millennium”, that gives the four prevalent views about the millennium and they are very different from one another: all by believing Christians. If we were to make an actual puzzle out of the scriptures, them being pieces of a complete puzzle, we would be missing many, many pieces of the picture. Now the scriptures don’t tell us very much about what God does at death and judgment. Yet in other places the bible is very clear about the actual outcome of events, such as in Colossians chapter 1. Yet those with a traditional interpretation seem to think that the lacking data is a fatal flaw in a UR interpretation of scripture. The traditional understanding has many holes as well, many pieces of the puzzle missing, and the traditionalist is very comfortable with what he is lacking, but thinks it is winning blow when it comes to Universal Reconciliation. It seems like a double standard to me. I have no idea how God is going to sort this whole thing out, yet he has still provided tons of scriptures that create a UR framework for understanding the bible. I see the ECT position as actually the weakest in explaining the whole of scripture. I place the annihilation theory in the middle, and the UR as strongest. They all have weak points, no doubt, but ECT is the weakest

i have to agree with this!

as to the OP, i really don’t know if the lake of fire would destroy a physical body, or if it is in fact a spiritual purification mechanism… but then as dirtboy says ANY interpretation framework requires us to fill gips with theory. i agree with his rating system (ECT is VERY weak in my opinion, on every level, from what i’ve learned and studied).