I was tempted to try and keep you guessing for awhile. I can be quite the joker! I had thought about claiming to be a fan of Puddy. LOL Yes, you raise good points. I will try to give my SPIN, shortly.
Revelation 21.8 does not say they were spatially outside of the city. Nor are they encouraged to wash their robes while spatially outside the city. This is the Lord speaking about ‘coming swiftly’ with his ‘wage’ and “to pay each one as his work is” The rinsing of their robes must occur, BEFORE the former heaven and earth pass away. This wage is given at His coming.
Unless they were raised to life at the white throne (no longer experience dying) it appears they would need the log of life. It is not that they would be put to death, but rather that they would undergo the process of dying again.
I do agree with this comment in the sense that John writes at times from his own standpoint in Patmos. This is certainly true in the section starting in Rev. 21.6. It seems clear however that 'death, mourning, clamor, and misery will not exist, since “the former things passed away.” (4) This links us back to verse one, where “the former heaven and earth pass away” In other words I do not get the sense that this is a gradual process that will occur in the new earth, but is done away, BECAUSE it is the new earth, and “the former things passed away”
Again, I think those that stand before the white throne, will have “their part in the lake burning with fire and sulpher, which is the second death.” It is in this sense that they are unable to enter the city. Ultimately I agree that “it is God Who keeps them and anyone else alive” Yet within the context of the new earth, it appears God does so through the ‘log of life’
Life for the ‘conquering’ (21.7) seems to be put into contrast with death for the ‘unbelieving’ (21.8) That unless one conquers, his name will be erased from the scroll of life (3.5) “To the one who is conquering, to him will I be granting to be eating of the log of life” (2.7) “The one who is conquering may under no circumstances be injured by the second death” (2.11) “Become faithful until death, and I shall be giving you the wreath of life” (2.10)
This conquering is to occur before the ‘new heaven and new earth’ This conquering involves persecution by the Adversary and unbelievers. There is no second chance given to unbelievers. They are permanently eliminated from life and the holy city (22.19) The actual opportunity to suffer persecution under the hand of Satan and unbelievers will not exist in the new earth “Lo! the tabernacle of God is with mankind, and He will be tabernacling with them, and they will be His peoples, and God Himself will be with them” (21.3) The conquering necessary to be “clothed in white garments” must be before the ‘consummation’ (2.26)
Rev 21:8 says their part will be in the lake of fire etc. One way or another that counts as being outside the city, including by the terms of Rev 21 (where at verse 27 no one who lies and practices abomination shall come into it but only those whose names are written in the book of life. Although the Greek there is a conditional not an comparative exclusion, so it’s really more like “not unless their names are written”).
I’m not married to the idea that the city is a spatial relationship with those outside the city, although I wouldn’t bet against there being some kind of literal element either (or more than one), but my reply was predicated on the city being the Bride, the group of the faithful.
The ones who thirst are encouraged to drink from the spring of the water of life at Rev 21:6. This obviously applies to those still outside the city, whether spatially so or otherwise; and the river of life flows out of the city by implication at Rev 22:1-2 (and explicitly in the Ezekiel vision RevJohn is referencing heavily here). Otherwise it would be a pool or something like that. A river goes somewhere, even if the river is a metaphor for something more than a river.
The Psalm being referenced there (or one of the Psalms anyway) involves YHWH coming in mercy and power to pacify (or any of several other positive meanings to the verb including save) everyone according to his work. That this involves punishment in some cases doesn’t void the final intention.
The old earth admittedly cannot finish passing away before the impenitent sinners are made new with the other “all things”. But if they are annihilated they won’t be made new. Moreover the language of restoration being referenced at the end of RevJohn, applied in the OT to YHWH saving rebel Israel and leading them back to faithful loyalty, such that Jacob and Rachel (representing righteous Israel) would stop weeping and would no longer be ashamed of them, nor grieving any longer (and refusing to be comforted) because God had to slay them as rebels.
But apparently not before the descent of the Bride/New Jerusalem from heaven. Otherwise the Bride wouldn’t be joining the Spirit in evangelizing those outside the gates of the NJ.
The goal of the wage is not immediately accomplished at His coming however, or not in the case of impenitent sinners anyway.
Granted. If they aren’t put to death, then they cannot be annihilated. 
They are not raised to eonian life but to eonian chastising or judgment (or crisis a little more literally). That still involves God providing them some sort of life, or they wouldn’t be raised at all. They just don’t have eonian life yet. Thus the evangelization.
That’s all part of the flashforward to show the end result of making all things new. Making all things new doesn’t mean annihilating the old things.
We both agree on that. We disagree on whether those who are unable to enter the city will be evangelized by those who go out to them to encourage them to slake their thirst and obtain permission to eat of the tree of life (as RevJohn also says). Either way, being unable to enter the city doesn’t necessarily mean they’re annihilated, because no one has ever had permission to enter the city while being impenitent sinners. You didn’t and I didn’t; now we do, being repentant of our sins and trusting Christ to save us from our sins. We don’t earn that or convince Christ to save us, but we’re cooperating with what He’s already doing in our lives. Until we cooperate though we have to be outside.
Those who conquer refer earlier in RevJohn (including back in chapters 2 and 3) to those who repent of their sins, come out from the worship of the beast, and come out to stand upon the sea of glass mixed with fire once the wrath of God is completed (Rev 15:1-4). I doubt that’s a literal sea of glass mixed with fire, but it at least represents people coming out of the second death triumphant over sin (and is one of those flashforwards John occasionally uses to show the end result).
At any rate life for the conquering at 21:7 is connected to the same drinking by the thirst of the freely given water of life one verse earlier, which the Bride and the Spirit are exhorting those still outside the NJ to drink and obtain permission to enter the City to eat of the log of life at 22:14-17. Obviously at that point there cannot yet be what is prophesied back at verse 22:3 or any of the similar verses you’re citing: those must be flashfoward revelations to the final result, and the progress to the final result is being shown afterward.
True, but those whose names are not yet in the scroll of life still live (by the grace of God, though not sharing in eonian life) and can be added back in. Otherwise the missionary verses of Rev 22 would be pointless, since they are going out to those whose names are not (yet) in the book of life.
You (or your source) sure didn’t get that from 3:21 – Laodicea isn’t being persecuted by the Adversary and unbelievers except in the sense that they’re being led astray and are being called to repent. The previous uses of the term back through chapter 2 can refer to those who keep the faith but also to those who overcome their sin and return to the faith.
True, but irrelevant; conquering isn’t only about holding faithfully fast and staying righteous in the face of unrighteous persecution. Victory over sin means more than that.
Granted, the conquering must be completed before the new heavens and new earth will be completed.
22:19 does not say or imply “permanently”, although it does say that this will happen to those who add to the scroll or take away from its words. Such as the evangelization of the unbelievers in the immediately preceding verses, which you (or your sources) have not really accounted for yet. One way or another they are part of the New Jerusalem which descends with the coming of the new heaven and the new earth, and their evangelization of those outside the NJ takes place as a consequence of that descent, which one way or another means the new heavens and new earth aren’t accomplished immediately, nor the all things being made new, nor are all evil and death and pain and weeping immediately done away with. The nations and the kings of the earth still have to walk by the light of Christ which lights up the New Jerusalem, the gates of which (or of whom) will never be closed. Until they’re all brought in, they’re still outside, and if they’re still outside to be evangelized and brought in they aren’t annihilated by being outside.
Annihilating them would be the same as closing the gates against them. That doesn’t happen and isn’t going to happen, per the testimony of the revelation.
To this I will add that the notion of “no second chance” is foreign to the whole history of salvation. None of us would be saved from our sins if God wasn’t a God of second chances (and seventh and seventy-time-sevenths, as Simon Peter discovered despite his avowals of undying loyalty – and despite his attempt at trying to find a limit to how far he had to forgive his penitent brother.)
Those “kings of the earth” whom you acknowledge are going into the New Jerusalem after the lake of fire judgment, are specific evidence of just the sort of second chance that you (or your source) deny. That precise phrase only occurs elsewhere in RevJohn in reference to the chief human rebels against God (under the Antichrist and the False Prophet), and the last we see of them before the lake of fire judgment Jesus is “shepherding” them with the rod of iron like a king overthrowing rebel armies, scattering their remains for birds to feed on, and drenching His robes in their blood! They’re on the way to the lake of fire. And yet, there they after the LoF judgment following the light of Christ and leading their people into the never-closed gates of the New Jerusalem where none but those whose names are written in the Book of Life may enter. (Loyal followers of Christ under persecution are described once in RevJohn as being kings and priests, but not as “kings of the earth”.)
And their identity as penitent rebels, is confirmed by comparison with the prophecies from Isaiah which RevJohn is echoing, for in those prophecies the kings who persecuted Israel (both righteous Israel and rebel Israel!) repent of their persecution after the judgmental coming of YHWH, and reconcile with them, and enter into Jerusalem as loyal servants of YHWH. They aren’t annihilated by going into the second death of the lake of fire, no more than they are tormented forever. The light of Christ goes out to them from the NJ (the Bride of Christ), and they follow the light inside. Just like chapter 22 also indicates.
[Updated to correct: while RevJohn is certainly echoing portions of Ezekiel here in the final chapters, especially concerning the river of life, I was actually thinking of some places in Isaiah instead regarding the kings of the earth coming into the city no longer walking by the sun and the moon etc.]
We all have sources.
Dearly beloved,
Having just looked at this string of submissions rather reminds me of the learned folks who spoke at much length about the conditions on the moon prior to the Eagle landing! Perhaps we could cut to the chase and agree our God is a consuming fire Heb 12 : 29 or not Ex 3 : 2 as applicable. Also eternal so He is all of the above. Is the question more about His nature rather than feet and inches (or meters)? Cheers folks
Thanks for your nice comment ChrisB. Yet I am afraid I will be sandwiching your comment.
Well, unless their names are written in the scroll of life they will not be entering into the city. If they are dead they will not be entering into the city. It is an assumption this means they must be alive.
Well to him who is thirsting, they shall be given the spring of the water of life.To him who is conquering they shall be enjoying the allotement. This is not referring to those already on the new earth, but to those living before that eon, who are thirsting and conquering.
…and why must sinners be made new at this point in time? Is this the consummation?(1Cor. 15.24) has the last enemy now been destroyed? (1 Cor. 15.26) Has all rule and authority been abolished? ( 1 Cor. 15.24) Not if there will still be Kings in the new earth (Rev. 21.24) Not if the throne of the Lamb is present (Rev. 22.3) and the saints are reigning
(Rev. 22.5)
You may have to explain further. Are you referring to the 1000 years, before the white throne judgement?
That is fine. My point is that only those that are conquering in this life, receive the wage and allotment. This conquering cannot occur during the time, God tabernacles among mankind.
Just because God raised them to judgement at the white throne doesn’t imply that they will continue to live after the judgement has concluded.
John may flash forward us to the new heavens and the new earth, but there is no indication that he is flash forwarding us to only a certain point of time in the new earth. Again I do not get the sense that this is a gradual process that will occur in the new earth, but that ‘death, mourning, clamor, and misery’ are done away, BECAUSE it is the new earth, and “the former things passed away”
The truth is that the picture John is giving us of the new earth, is not at all the impression many universalists have of that time, where they are claiming some sort of purgatory condition existing upon the earth.
Yes, I would say that I agree with you, but I am not aware that I am using this as an argument. However, it is too often assumed that verses 21.27 and 22.15 are some sort of evidence that they cannot have been put to death. Indeed that is clearly what John means when he uses the term ‘the second death’ It really is a perfect term to express the situation.
Again, I will assert that conquering is not possible under the conditions of the new earth. All of humanity will be greatly blessed at that time, and God will tabernacle with mankind. Those born during that final eon, before God becomes All in all, will be in a blessed state. How much more blessed is it to live in our day, where we can suffer, and be persecuted for our faith. Paul says that ‘all who live devoutly in Christ Jesus, shall be persecuted.’
I only used the word ‘permanently’ in a contextual manner. The passage sounds definite to me. “God shall be eliminating his part from the log of life, and out of the holy city”
You are quite correct Sherman. The Dead Sea IS the literal LOF. The symbology is stunning.
remnantbiblestudies.com/intr … e_pt2.html
The fire outside the gates was the Jerusalem rubbish tip known as Gehenna.
remnantbiblestudies.com/intr … l_pt3.html
The spiritual LOF of Revelation is the fire that purges our carnality.
remnantbiblestudies.com/intr … e_pt4.html
What a wonderful God we have… 
The question of God’s nature is directly connected to the question of whether the Bride goes out in cooperation with the Spirit to evangelize those outside the New Jerusalem, regardless of whether there’s also some kind of spatial relationship involved. Obviously if God’s nature is such that He hopelessly annihilates sinners eventually, then the “lake of fire” doesn’t exist “near the city” in any way relevant to salvation and evangelization. The proximity of the LoF to the NJ, or even to the throne of God, makes a conceptual difference in the meaning of the imagery, even if the imagery is ‘only’ poetic.
True, but I didn’t want to attribute a problem to you that actually comes from one of your sources. Thus I qualified my criticism.
No, it is an inference from the total set of data that they are still alive outside the city. You may disagree with my inference for various reasons, but dismissing it as a mere assumption is both inaccurate and unfair.
Rev 22:14-17 describes people outside the city being evangelized, using terms which apply to people described in Rev 21:8 as being in the lake of fire by contrast to the Bride/New Jerusalem. 21:8 implies they are outside the city; Rev 22 affirms they are outside the city. Whether they are spatially outside a physical city is irrelevant; that may also turn out to be true, but it isn’t the important point. The salient point is that as impenitent sinners they aren’t in the group of the Bride, who are described both as being the New Jerusalem and dwelling in the NJ. I take it the distinction is similar to the group of believers being called the Church and individual believers being described as in the Church.
Even if this only applied to those living before that eon (which would undermine your attempt at indicating Rev 21 all happens immediately upon the descent of the new eon, but whatever), you’re missing my point to which you were replying: this obviously applies to those still outside the city. Being outside the city is not necessarily indicative of annihilation, or no sinner would ever be saved at all.
If being outside the city does not automatically involve annihilation, then you’ll have to hang your argument for annihilation on something else than them being outside the city. At which point you’re going to be going against at least two sets of testimony through the end of RevJohn about hopeful and successful evangelization going on for those outside the city, which certainly does not involve those people having been hopelessly annihilated!
Even if RevJohn ended at 21:8, the hopeless annihilation of impenitent sinners would not be something to wipe away every tear with no mourning or crying; not among people who are exhorted to love their enemies. Rachel and Jacob (standing for righteous Israel) aren’t consoled for their grief over their rebel children in the OT by a promise that their rebel children shall be finally annihilated out of existence, or even by a promise that God will give them entirely new children (although that’s included, too), but by a promise that God has not forgotten rebel Ephraim who will surely repent and be restored. In the specific prophecy from Isaiah 25 being quoted there, ruthless nations have their cities thrown down never to be reestablished, and enter into the gates of Jerusalem once they have learned to praise God for His saving mercies by means of judgment against them (since they wouldn’t learn by favor). Admittedly Isaiah may be talking about the millennial rule there, but RevJohn has gone on past the millennial rule.
I wasn’t saying they will be made new at this point in time. I said rather that “the old earth admittedly cannot finish passing away before the impenitent sinners are made new with the other ‘all things’. But if they are annihilated they won’t be made new.”
No, the final chapters of RevJohn do not mostly speak of the final consummation being aimed at in 1 Cor 15 (aside from the usual flashforward to the end goal John gives at 21:1-4.) But since you mention 1 Cor 15, neither can Christ’s submission of sinners involve their mere annihilation as impenitent sinners, since He submits all things to God Who submitted all things to Himself so that God may be all in all. If God finally annihilates, He would not be submitting all things to Himself.
The “kings of the earth” from Rev 21:24 are certainly submitting themselves to Christ, and so possibly not reigning anymore, but more importantly they were the worst rebels against Christ and were put into the lake of fire which is the second death. Which obviously means they weren’t annihilated.
The 1000 years apparently doesn’t involve the descent of the New Jerusalem as such, although it does involve the descent of the Bride as agents of Christ. The old Jerusalem is still around during that time, and Christ operates from a new physical location north of old Jerusalem (with a new Temple), which is not the NJ. After the White Throne judgment, there is no longer any Temple, neither at the worship complex north of OJ nor in OJ. The final chapters of RevJohn appear to be talking about the time after the 1000 years and after the lake of fire judgement, also after the general resurrection which doesn’t occur in RevJohn (arguably not elsewhere either) until after the millennium reign.
And yet, there’s evangelization still going on, both hopefully and successfully, in the final chapters of RevJohn, after the millennium, and after the White Throne/Lake of Fire judgment.
RevJohn and the prophets (including St. Paul at 1 Cor 15) say that the conquering continues while God tabernacles among men. I’m going with them. 
Until everyone submits to Christ, the conquering must continue (for He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet, in some fashion which they are not already under His feet by immediate virtue of His reign), and this continues to occur in at least two different phases while God tabernacles among mankind, before and after the general resurrection.
However, I acknowledge regarding the wage and allotment, that only those who conquer (and are conquered!) in this life receive the reward of acting as God’s agents during the millennium reign. Those who die faithfully during the millennium receive the reward of avoiding the second death and the lake of fire judgment, and act as God’s agents (along with those previously rewarded) after the general resurrection. But this includes continuing the eonian evangel until all God’s enemies are submitted to Christ as Christ submits to the Father (i.e. loyally submitted, not wiped out of existence or permanently submitted in disloyalty with false worship etc.)
In itself no, but it does mean God can raise a person to life without them having eonian life yet. So a lack of eonian life (just like now) doesn’t necessarily involve annihilation.
What does imply they continue to live is their evangelization, as well as various prophecies indicating a totally victorious submission by Christ eventually. Annihilation isn’t submission.
Since evangelization of some kind continues later among impenitent rebels, under conditions which do not apply to the millennium reign much less to the pre-millennium period, then that indicates the first verses of chapter 21 flashforward to a result after that has all finished.
Similarly, John flashforwards at the beginning of (what we call) chapter 15, to reveal what the result will be once the wrath of God is finished or completed, which involves total loyal worship of God for His mighty saving victories (including by people who have come out victorious from the beast and his image and the number of his name). That certainly hasn’t happened yet in the rest of chapter 15, much less most of the subsequent material!
The truth is that John gives us a picture of the new earth with some sort of purgatory condition and evangelization continuing, which is why universalists get that impression of that time. Concentrating only on the first verses of chapter 21 would however lead to a different impression I suppose.
You (or perhaps Jim Coram whom you’ve been quoting since you returned) were earlier leaning heavily on the idea that since those outside the city did not have access to the log of life, therefore they must not exist anymore, since they would need the log of life to live.
So being outside the city isn’t what signifies their annihilation; not having access to the log of life isn’t what signifies their annihilation; eonian chastising isn’t what signifies their annihilation. Being in the lake of fire, which is the second death, doesn’t signify their annihilation (or RevJohn wouldn’t be reporting evangelization of people after the LoF judgment outside the NJ, nor would the kings of the earth be able to enter the city after being put in the LoF). Having all tears wiped away with no more sorrowing doesn’t signify their annihilation. All things being made new certainly doesn’t signify their annihilation. What’s left? Nothing in RevJohn per se; the idea is being read in from somewhere else.
If you want to follow Jim Coram in replying that 21:24 refers merely to righteous inhabitants of the world occasionally visiting a physical city (as you quoted him in your original post for this thread), then so much for trying to claim that RevJohn isn’t talking about physical relationships to a literal New Jerusalem!–but you (and/or Jim) will still have to deal with the Isaiah 60 reference being echoed there (maybe also the tail end of Isaiah 24, or even the whole prophetic block of chapters 24-26), which is not about righteous Gentile kings going about their usual business but about penitent Gentile kings reconciling with Israel and so entering Jerusalem; and you’ll still have to deal with John’s uniform habit everywhere else in the Revelation of referring to the chief human rebels against God as “the kings of the earth”.
You’re throwing that term “assumed” around again, inaccurately and unfairly. You may not agree with the inferences, but the inferences are not assumptions.
On the contrary, treating the inferences as assumptions is an indication that you aren’t interested in critiquing the actual position.
The inference I draw from 21:27, based on the grammar and the narrative and thematic context, is that those who are unclean and practice abomination may enter once they have been written into the lamb’s book of life, which means once they have given up their abominable practices, the kings of the earth having just been presented as examples of the principle: they were very explicitly put to death by Christ, put in the lake of fire (before or after the White Throne judgment) along with anyone else who continues to worship the beast and to hold to the number of his name, and now have repented and are entering the NJ following the light of Christ (instead of following the sun or the moon, as Isiaah puts it). Until then they don’t enter. I repeat, that is an inference, not an assumption.
Similarly, I’m drawing inferences about those fondling their sins outside the city at 22:15. If you don’t want to deal with the arguments, that’s your choice, but stop calling it an assumption. The ones who continue to fondle their sins are outside the city, and the ones who obtain permission to enter at verse 14 are outside the city, just like the ones who drink and wash their robes in verse 17 are outside the city.
If you want to try arguing that verses 14 and 17 apply to evangelism before the lake of fire judgment, you’re going to have a huge difficulty in arguing that verse 15 (which appears smack between them) refers to results after the LoF. (Unless you merely assume it, insert irony here. ) You would do better to argue that everything from verse 10 onward applies only to present evangelism (since it certainly applies at least to that), but then you cannot appeal to verse 15 to describe the ultimate fate of the unrighteous. Moreover, you will have a hard time avoiding the consequential conclusion that everything in Rev 22 from verse 1 only applies to present evangelism (since verse 2 makes no sense unless there are nations to be healed). But then if that’s true, you’ll have a hard time avoiding the conclusion that everything back at least through 21:5 only refers to present evangelism; and if that, then how does 21:1-4 not refer only to present evangelism (since similar phrases are used in chapter 22)? But then none of that has anything to do with the final fate of the wicked, or of the world to come, in which case the promises apparently given about a new heaven and new earth and all pain and sorrow and tears being wiped away are drained of anything but a rather transparently exaggerated hyperbole about how great it is to be a Christian now in this life.
Which I am not prepared to accept, on various thematic and narrative grounds. (Nor you and/or your sources so far, or you’d have been arguing that instead, like a full preterist might.) But then I have to take seriously the evangelism as referring to a future situation, meaning the people being evangelized at that time aren’t annihilated.
Okay, you’re welcome to assert that assumption as much as you want, but I prefer to go with how the evidence adds up instead.
For what it’s worth, I agree on the basis of the evidence (not as an assertion or assumption) that once the new earth is fully established conquering not only won’t be possible but won’t be needed at all. But the new earth, on the evidence, cannot finish coming in until Christ has fully conquered (and people have conquered their sin by means of Christ).
So again I infer, Rev 21:1-4 is a flashforward to the final result, since the rest of the scroll talks about things evidently happening before the final result is accomplished.
Not too contextually, though, since (as I keep mentioning) the immediately preceding context is about hopeful evangelization of those who outside the city don’t have permission to enter the city and eat the leaves of the log of life. As I wrote in the paragraph to which you were replying, you (or your sources) have not really accounted for the evangelization of the unbelievers in the immediately preceding verses – adding a “permanently” to verse 19 runs totally against the immediate context!
So I will repeat what I wrote about that preceding context: "One way or another [those who are evangelizing] are part of the New Jerusalem which descends with the coming of the new heaven and the new earth, and their evangelization of those outside the NJ takes place as a consequence of that descent, which one way or another means the new heavens and new earth aren’t accomplished immediately, nor the all things being made new, nor are all evil and death and pain and weeping immediately done away with. The nations and the kings of the earth still have to walk by the light of Christ which lights up the New Jerusalem, the gates of which (or of whom) will never be closed. Until they’re all brought in, they’re still outside, and if they’re still outside to be evangelized and brought in they aren’t annihilated by being outside.
“Annihilating them would be the same as closing the gates against them. That doesn’t happen and isn’t going to happen, per the testimony of the revelation.”
???
You do seem to be implying something.
I do have a mind of my own.
You responded to one of my comments,
“Okay, you’re welcome to assert that assumption as much as you want, but I prefer to go with how the evidence adds up instead.”
What is really unfair is to apply two different standards to the both of us
One wonders if you would have such an apparent problem with my sources, if they were from the church fathers, C.S. Lewis, and George MacDonald? They are quoted endlessly on these forums.
Annihilation Is a loaded word. You load up the term further “Being outside the city is not necessarily indicative of annihilation, or no sinner would ever be saved at all.” Now you are aware that I am a UR, and do not hold to annihilation. I prefer the term ‘death’ or in relation to the lake of fire, ‘the second death’ In John 3.16 we have ‘eonian’ life put in contrast with ‘perish’
Where does it say they need to be brought in (at least in the sense you seem to be implying)?
The important point is that they are dead, and in this sense they are outside of the city. (21:8) Rev 22:14-17 does not describe people outside the city being evangelized. Yet they must be ready for the coming of Christ. He will have his wages with Him.
I do believe John is talking about physical relationships to a literal New Jerusalem. I stated earlier “There will be Kings and nations living outside the NJ, but the gates to the city will not be locked.”
This is a very poor argument. What verses 12-17 are basically saying, is that when Christ comes again, he will have a reward with him, and that the unbelievers, will be left out of that reward, and in verse 17 individuals are encouraged to attain the reward.
We don’t read of a process bringing in the new earth. We read of a fiery cataclysm.
"Yet the heavens now, and the earth, by the same word, are stored with fire, being kept for the day of the judgment and destruction of irreverent men [the Great White Throne Judgment]. . . .
Now the day of the Lord will be arriving as a thief, in which the heavens shall be passing by with a booming noise, yet the elements will be dissolved by combustion, and the earth and the works in it will be discovered. All these, then, being dissolved, what manner ought you to belong to in holy behavior and devoutness, hoping for and hurrying the presence of the day of God, because of which the heavens, being on fire, will be dissolved and the elements are decomposed by combustion! Yet we, according to His promises, are hoping for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness is dwelling"
(2 Pet. 3:7-13).
You two are talking past each other, Jason & Puddy. Puddy, Jason thinks, because of the things you’ve been saying, that you’ve become an annihilationist. Jason, Puddy has in the past insisted on actual death as in non-existence, followed by resurrection and immediate healing from sin (if I’m explaining that correctly), and from his most recent response I think that must be what he’s asserting.
Puddy, I also thought you must have decided on anni, so it’s not just Jason who thought that. I’m even somewhat familiar with your beliefs, which I’m not sure Jason is. I didn’t think his post was intended to be confrontational, in any case. I can see why you might, but in reading it, it just sounded like his normal ‘logical argument’ style to me. I don’t think he intended to offend you or insult you at all. Men tend to be somewhat ‘blunt’ with one another, I’ve noticed. Jason won’t pull punches in his arguments, but I feel certain he didn’t intend to put you down.
A very sweet letter, Cindy. Nice to hear from you again. Just like in hockey where the players can fight and tussle. They will still go out and have a beer afterwards. I have no doubt Jason and I are friends.
Puddy,
If possible, I would even buy you two beers! 
(I’d have to go with root beer, but you could buy me two of those. )
When I replied to your “assertion” (as you yourself had called it) the way I did, that was because you had previously dismissed my arguments as mere assumptions without really addressing them. I correctly figured you wouldn’t like having your assertion dismissed the same way. I don’t like all my time and effort being swept aside as an “assumption”, and as you said (when you thought I was doing the same to you), “what is really unfair is to apply two different standards to the both of us.” If you want me to not dismiss your arguments as mere assertions (which I wouldn’t do anyway), you shouldn’t treat mine as mere assumptions.
But you were a lot better about that in your most recent reply.
As to the Jim Coram thing, Cindy is correct, I’m technically picky and I don’t know whether I’m replying to something you wrote or something you’re borrowing from Jim Coram. Sometimes people pick up and use something without having noticed the implications of it, in which case the error is with the source not them, and even if I thought it was a mistake I wanted to excuse you as far as possible.
Oh, THAT’S what he’s going for! No, I wasn’t familiar with Puddy’s beliefs on that.
{pondering}
Okay, I’m trying to make some guesses based on what you said, Puddy, and how you said it. I still can’t figure out why you said the latter half of Rev 22 is not about evangelism when I can’t see how it could possibly be about anything other than evangelism: people outside the city (dogs and sorcerers and everyone who fondles their sins) are being invited by the Son and the Spirit and the Bride (who per Rev 21 among other things is the NJ) to repent of their sins and obtain permission to enter into the NJ where the river of life comes from and where the log of life is with healing leaves for the nations. They’re being encouraged to enter the church. Who is being encouraged to enter in from outside if not those outside?? Or if those outside aren’t being encouraged to enter in, who is being encouraged to enter in??
If you had said this refers to current evangelism (instead of not referring to evangelism) before the coming of the Lord with His reward, that would at least fit the idea that after the coming of the Lord there will be no evangelism.
I can’t figure out where you’re factoring the millennium reign in all this (or perhaps what you think it is.) But you’re saying you think after the millennium reign there will be a general resurrection of the good and the evil, and the evil will get thrown into the lake of fire (not a physical lake but a condition, which I’m certainly fine with), which temporarily annihilates them. But then they’re… resurrected again (immediately after the fiery cataclysm of the second death) and allowed to enter the Church with no evangelism? Where is this second resurrection? And what New Jerusalem are you talking about that they are permanently excluded from in death?–a physical city they can’t come into? Why is that a factor after the lake of fire judgment, and why would John equate the same imagery with the Bride? If it’s the Church, how are they permanently excluded from the Church and yet saved from their sins??
If you had said that the Lord is going to kill a bunch of evildoers at His coming and set up a physical new Jerusalem for a thousand years (which those slain naturally won’t be able to enter since the general resurrection hasn’t happened yet), during which time the nations journey to the new physical Jerusalem (all of which I’d more or less agree with btw); and then there’s a general resurrection into the lake of fire judgment resulting in temporary annihilation and an immediate second resurrection of the wicked (although I’d want to know where you’re getting the second resurrection) who can then enter the Church without being evangelized; and who still cannot enter the physical new Jerusalem because that was destroyed in the lake of fire judgment (or along with it anyway) and won’t be coming back – I’d at least have figured out what you meant by the unjust being permanently excluded from the New Jerusalem: you’d have meant a mere physical city, not the Bride/New Jerusalem which you’d be regarding as quite a different thing (to which the physical NJ would be a representation). I still wouldn’t know why you’d deny the second half of Rev 22 was about evangelism, though; if you had denied it was about evangelism after the lake of fire judgment, that would have made more sense to me.
How does that not involve two resurrections as well as two deaths? All of what you say about them permanently not entering into the holy city (and having no second chances etc.), seems to apply after the LoF judgment and so after the descent of the Bride/New Jerusalem: aren’t we past the point of only referring to a physical city now, and primarily talking about the descent of the Bride/New Jerusalem as the loyal people of God? Being permanently eliminated from life sounds permanent to me, and you were talking about some kind of total death, so how does that not involve some kind of permanent total death (later once they finish dying, if not sooner) with no existence (since you don’t think they even exist outside the city)?
Are you expecting some sort of apology from me? What did I do wrong? That I used the term ‘assumption’ a few times?
It should also be noted the manner in which I used the term in this sentance “However, it is too often assumed that verses 21.27 and 22.15 are some sort of evidence that they cannot have been put to death.” I really didn’t even say anything personal about you, but made a general statement about how people approach this passage.
‘correctly figured’ is your take on it all.
I’m giving up on this debate. Beer sounds great. I assume you will be paying?
Puddy
Is is safe to come out and play now? 
My comment in the middle of all these posts arises from the feeling I have that the LOF is actually God Himself spoken of in terms of His purifying nature so the location is less important than the function which is purification. He seems to have had this on His agenda a long time and longer. Our God is a consuming fire! Am I still missing the point? 
Chris (ps I don’t like root bear but I do like the ginger version)
This understanding is also interesting, though a totally different approach:
You don’t like Root Beer? I don’t know if I can fellowship with you anymore. If you were an ET believer than I could make an exception, but Root Beer? I don’t know… 
Chris, fwiw, I think you’re right. This was the conclusion I had come to even before I rejected first ECT and later Anni. I also think there’s an interesting parallel with the bronze laver (also called a bronze sea) in the tabernacle/temple court for the purification of the priests before they entered the holy place. It was made of mirrors, btw. I expect you knew. I find that particularly revealing.
That’s pretty much my view.