Thanks for sharing, redhot. 
I agree, youāre are confused. The afterlife is where you go when you physically dieā¦either heaven or hell until the resurrection unto judgment in Rev 20:11-15. The age to come involves the millennial reign and eternity in Rev 21. I know you donāt believe this and youāre are free to believe what you wantā¦
Heh, been thru it so many times it isnāt funny. 
Its pre-trib. The falling away can also be interpreted as the departure. There are two meanings from the original greek word apostasia (according to Lidell & Scott Greek Lexicon) 1)defection, and 2)departure, or disappearance. Also, the man of sin canāt be revealed unless the church is gone. Once we are gone, the antichrist can take control. I believe the NWO is setting this up now.
Revival, i understand this is a big controversy among Christians, many say post, many say trib and others say mid. Then there are some that say pan. As in, itāll all pan out in the end. 
Also, many on this forum here dont believe in any rapture at all. 
Many are preterist i thinkā¦
I also think we best not go off topic. Weāll just agree to disagree on that one. 
Yes, we are off topic and No, youāre not correct.
You just have to get the last word in, dont you, lest i lead anyone astray. Most here dont even believe in a rapture so it makes no difference either way what we say about it.
For me, i am correct and for you, you are correct. We both cant be right tho. God knows the truth just as He knows the truth about ECT or UR.
You are here on a mission. We are not open to it for a reason. We dont believe scriptures says it. I would have to say that most of us were once like you, or at least similar to how you believe. God has now shown us otherwiseā¦ 
I am just wondering why you are here? You never respond to these kinds of questions. When you dont respond, you appear arrogant.
Iām here to discuss the truth of Godās word. Iām here to have respectful fruitful discussions about my differences with UR. You donāt have to be an UR to participate on these forums. Now we got that out of the way can we bring it back to the topic of this post. Thank you.
Jason
Whenever you can find the time to respond to my last post to you before it gets buried in all the off topic comments. Thanks.
Why do you think that I donāt believe that? Iām a partial preterist, but that doesnāt necessarily mean that I donāt think that there is some kind of millenial reign to come (by which I mean some kind of in-between state of glory before all-consuming perfection and union between God and man).
Anyway, are you asking how there could be people who are saved after the āalready but not yetā age has been fulfilled and perfection has come? I agree, but I still think that it comes in gradual degrees. As Jason pointed out, it began in ancient times and itās been installed in ever increasing degrees. Logically if it keeps building in the same way then weāre going to get to a point where it is mostly here but not fully - where most are saved, or the earth is totally restored but there are still people in the midst of the purification of the lake of fire waiting to be clothed in righteousness.
points to quote in signature
I am almost sure you would have no problem, though, accepting that people will be punished āinto the eons of the eonsā (i.e. the ages of the ages), though.
The Greek of the NT occasionally talks about multiple ages still to come after the return of Christ, and even ages of ages, both as promises and in warnings. This is somewhat obscured in English translations, which is not your fault (if you have little to no experience in researching the Greek original texts), so I didnāt mention it as a factor last time, preferring to stay with concepts you ought to be familiar with even in the King James Version.
Still, if you wish to deny the smoke of the torment of some persons (including Satan) shall be ascending into the eons of the eons {eis tous aionas ton aionon} (Rev 14:11; 19:3; 20:1), Iām sure youāll be able to find some people around here who would be willing to deny that with you. But I wonāt be one of them.
Whereas, if you wish to deny that God shall have glory into the eons of the eons (Rom 16:27; Gal 1:5; Phil 4:20; 1 Tim 1:17; 2 Tim 4:18; Heb 13:21; 1 Pet 4:11, 5:11; Rev 1:6, 5:13; 7:12); and to deny that God lives into the eons of the eons (Rev 4:9-10; 10:6; 15:7); and to deny that Christ is living into the eons of the eons (Rev 1:18); and to deny that Christ is reigning for the eons of the eons (Rev 11:15); and that Godās servants shall also be reigning for the eons of the eons (Rev 22:5)ā¦
ā¦well, then you and I are going to have some rather more fundamental disagreements to discuss. Because while I think some of those things into the eons of the eons end, and some do not, I resolutely affirm they do go on into the eons of the eons.
(There are some other things in the NT about oncoming eons, too, but those are the most emphatic.)
On the other hand, if you affirm that there are multiple coming eons and even whole eons coming comprised of eons, then so much for any simple rebuttal on the notion that there is only one future eon spoken of in the scriptures.
Although, I do agree and have already affirmed and will affirm again below that Christ is talking about the coming age of the Lord in comparison to this present evil age. I know some people, especially universalists and annihilationists, read a mere sequence about this, so that Christ is only talking about the first of many eons afterward. But I think a nested reading makes more intrinsic sense and more sense of the scriptural data, so that the age of the Lord includes ages and ages of ages, and also infinitely beyond even ages of ages; so there is no reason for you to try to dismiss me on that ground.
You can still try to disagree that even if multiple ages are coming, and are nested in each other, there are no overlaps per se between ages, as that would still address what Iām inferring from the scriptural data.
Since I am not in fact denying that the Day of the Lord is still to come, and since you affirm that I listed various things happening at different times and places in this present age, I can only infer that you are complaining about my not believing that eonian life (which we already receive) and the kingdom of God (which Christ was already proclaiming as having come with His ministryāthus also with His life, if the Incarnation is true) are actually only of this present evil age per se and not of the age to come!
Because if you did believe with me that these are instead of the age to come, then you would also believe with me that the age to come has already started in overlap with this present age. They are not from this present evil age, but are occurring in it, and will continue after this present evil age ends.
So the age to come has already started (almost 2000 years ago), and is still to come (because this present evil age is not yet finished).
Is the Day of the Lord, the age to come, still to come? I say yes; and so do you.
Did (and in some cases do) those things happen? I say yes; and so do you. (My ironic hypothesis last time being predicated on an expectation of you actually agreeing they did and do happen.)
Did (and in some cases do) those things happen in the present evil age? I say yes; and so do you.
Are those things from and of the age of the Lord? I say yes. I can hardly imagine you say no, and you seem willing to agree they are.
Are those things from and of the present evil age? I say no, even though they happen in it. Again, I can hardly imagine you saying that eonian life, the kingdom of God, and the Incarnation of Christ are from and of the present evil age. But is that where we are in disagreement?
Because if we are also in agreement there, then nothing is left over!āthings of the age of the Lord have started happening and have continued to happen for almost 2000 years, thus the age of the Lord to that degree (yet still really to that degree) has already started (or those things of the age to come wouldnāt have started); but the present evil age is still continuing, too (for almost 2000 years now); but eventually it will end and the age to come will start happening vastly much more than it is already happening (so in that sense, perhaps among others, the Day of the Lord, the age to come, is still to come.)
So, what is it I am believing here that you are actually disagreeing about? Because Iām pretty sure someone could agree with all that and still believe that the process doesnāt continue past the 2nd Coming!
Wouldnāt it be a more profitable use of your time and energy (not to say my own in replying to you), to complain that I believe the process continues after the 2nd Coming, rather than to complain that I believe that key things of the age of the Lord (eonian life, the kingdom of God, and Christās Incarnate reign), and so to that degree the age of the Lord itself, have already started and have been going on for almost 2000 years? Much less to (implicitly or otherwise) complain about what I have never denied and instead have constantly affirmed, that in very significant and important and real ways the age of the Lord is still to come?!
That might be possible, except that I donāt find or believe that the New Testament talks about dispensations in a way that might be confused with divisions between ages. Itās always about service (diakonia) or authoritative administration of common peace (oikonomia).
So, no, I donāt think Iām a dispensationalist, although Iāve grown up among them. Not an unreasonable guess, though.
Seeing as how I said originally that the reckoning of longer than 2000 years depended on how one interpreted Genesis, distinguishing it from my other bits of testimony in favor of it starting with the Incarnation and ministry and resurrection of Christ; and seeing as how I repeated this in my previous post, before going on to clarify that I donāt actually accept that interpretation of Genesis, i.e. the one where the 7th day, as the Day of the Lord, started after the creation of man; there is less than no reason at all for you to continue having a problem with me on that score. (But since thatās a popular understanding I mentioned it for any readers who accept it.)
Or putting it more positively, I said that I (find and) believe that the Parousia can (and does) involve a process to completion after the lake of fire judgment. But yes.
The parousia means āthe presenceā, and especially the presence of Christ; so unless youāre denying that Christ was present with us in the Incarnation, and will be present with us even to the end of the age, then once again you actually agree that the Parousia to that extent has already started and has been going on for almost 2000 years.
But I also affirm that in other important and real ways (which of course you also agree with), the Parousia of Christ is still to come.
Hint: I talk about that quite a bit elsewhere on the site. Where by the way I completely affirm that those who continue to blaspheme the Holy Spirit, whether in this age or in the age to come, have no forgiveness.
Since I have never once said that those who are blaspheming the Holy Spirit nevertheless receive forgiveness, except insofar as God in acting toward freeing them from their sins leads them to stop doing so (whether in this age or the age to come), obviously you canāt be critiquing me on that. You have to be disagreeing about my belief that God acts to lead sinners to stop blaspheming against the Holy Spirit in the age to come (and maybe disagreeing about my belief that God does the same in this age, too!)
I have also pointed out that in Matthewās report, Jesus pronounces this against religious leaders who accuse Jesus of being in league with the devil for treating someone whose last state was worse than his first as not being hopelessly lost, but persisting instead to save that person whose last state was worse than his first.
Having read all the story of that incident in the Gospels (instead of focusing only on one paragraph), I am proportionately disinclined to say that someone whose last state is worse than his first is beyond the salvation of Jesus, lest I should have Jesusā condemnation of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit leveled against me!
But obviously there are lots of people who have no problem agreeing with the Pharisees that someone whose last state is worse than his first is hopelessly lost beyond Godās power and/or intention to save, and that any indication Jesus would think otherwise must be the work of the devil instead. (Although I expect they only arenāt paying sufficient attention to the story there, and donāt realize theyāre agreeing with the Pharisees whom Jesus condemned.)
I have also pointed out elsewhere that Markās account (which doesnāt mention some key material explaining the situation that Matthew includes), very strongly (unlike Matthewās account) stresses in Greek (sometimes muffled by English translations) the utter totality of forgiveness of any sin or blasphemy, before warning about the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit which is a sin into the eon.
In any case, we have to either interpret the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (not phased as strongly in GosMark) by the forgiveness of every sin and blasphemy whatever (phrased more strongly than the warning in GosMark), or interpret the grace of Godās forgiveness as being hyperexceeded by the sin (despite the phraseology exceeding the sin otherwise). And once again, I donāt think itās a good idea for me to interpret this so that the sin exceeds the grace, as that would weigh against any hope for me, the sinner, being saved from my sins by Christ. (And would run staunchly against Paulās declaration on this topic in Romans.)
So the grammatic phraseology of GosMark leads me not to deny hope for those currently blaspheming the Holy Spirit, that they will be led by God to stop that and so be saved from their sins; and the narrative contexts of GosMatt lead me in a different (possibly even stronger) fashion to the same result.
Until I hear an argument for hopelessness there more detailed than what I have bothered to do in studying those reports, I am not going to be impressed with mere prooftexting appeals to half a paragraph from those reports.
(But at least youāre making an argument for disagreement on something I actually believe that we definitely disagree on, now, truncated though that argument is.)
Moving onā¦
You forgot to quote me where I said I donāt recall seeing much scriptural testimony on this yet, which is why I rarely talk about it being a doctrine testified in scripture, and typically reference 1 Peter when I do, along with some possible hints of it elsewhere. But Iāve gone to the trouble of including it for you in your reference to me that you were replying to. (Just as I went to the trouble of writing it in the first place.)
Since even I think that scriptural testimony to it is tentative at best, I canāt imagine why you (of all people) would even distantly dream of accepting anything I said about it from the scriptures. You donāt even accept things I think are often and clearly testified to!
So for example I could spend time talking about 1 Peter (and thus also about Who is leading them out), and how the Greek there indicates that (4:18-20f) Christ having died for our sins, the just for the unjust, that He might be leading us to God, and having also gone (past tense) in spirit to the spirits in jail who were stubborn in the days of Noah, Christ also heralds (present tense) to those not saved by the Ark from the flood; bringing (present tense) an evangel even also to the dead (which implies a distinction of bringing the gospel also to the living for them to be saved), so that they may be judged according to the flesh yet should be living according to God in spirit. (5:6)
But I am perfectly well aware you would not accept Biblical testimony on this if I provided itāhow much less so various related hints I have in mind here and there! So, since I have already declined to provide them (and not as throwing pearls to swine for them to be trampled underfoot, but on the basis that they are too tentative for me to expect you to fairly accept), why are you asking me to provide them? You are entirely capable of looking up anything I (or anyone else) have said concerning the one scripture I did mention in passing as having, I think, some bearing on this topic.
Moreover, since I already said I actually expect God is extending the not-yet reconciliation to people in hell right now, I have no interest at all in answering your questions about why He isnāt. So there is less than no reason at all to repeat those questions to me.
But I tried to be fair about acknowledging that my expectations about Him doing so are not (yet?) as strongly scripturally grounded as I think the promise and prophecies are of His eventual total success on this in the Day of the Lord to come.
Everything I have ever written affirms my expectation that Gehenna starts at death for impenitent sinners; but since there is OT testimony (I expect incomplete even if believed to be nothing more by those who received it) to the effect that even sinners are barely conscious if at all in death, I try to allow for that as a possibility.
And I routinely go far out of my way to qualify where I am not sure about things. If you had been paying sufficient attention before, you would not be shocked by seeing me do it again here.
Spoken like someone who hasnāt studied the OT much on this topic. I do agree that the NT much more strongly testifies to conscious existence after death and before resurrection (including at Luke 16:19-31).
Now that sounds like you know they exist but are determined to ignore them because they donāt comfortably fit your beliefs!
As someone who takes my teaching responsibilities seriously, though, I donāt have that luxury.
Itās rather a stretch to try to claim that the fire of hades is not also Gehenna, so that references to Gehenna have nothing to do with warning about the fire awaiting impenitent sinners in hades. I do usually talk about Gehenna in regard to the LOF specifically (since the scriptures usually talk about bodies as well as souls being thrown into it), but not always (because not always. )
You certainly have not indicated any principle difference between the punishment of the LOF and of the fire in hades, only a difference of one detail (bodies suffer as well as spirits in the LOF). Neither do I: itās the same fire, the fire that burns in Gehenna.
I affirm that thereās a technical distinction concerning the bodies, so I donāt blame people for referring to Gehenna only in regard to the lake of fire. But thereās only one unquenchable fire testified to anywhere in the scriptures, including in regard to the punishment of Gehenna, and I affirm that the same fire with the same punishment (and the same intended goals) affects impenitent spirits in hades, too.
If you wish to insist that the punishment of the lake of fire hasnāt already started for them, but some completely different punishment of unquenchable fire which has no functional or qualitative difference in itself whatever (and never-endingly so either way, as far as you believe), I wonāt complain much about it.
(I suspect the only reason youāre quibbling about it now is because it would be one more evidence in favor of something from the age of the Lord already starting in this age. Like eonian life, the kingdom of God, and the presence of Christ beyond Christās normal omnipresence.)
Jason
Thank you for your quick response. I appreciate it. The age of ages is used many times in the NTā¦ it means āforever,ā āwithout end.ā, āforevermoreā Some verses deal with eternal condemnation and judgment. The others with Godās Glory and honor.
I now understand what you meant by the āparousiaā of Jesus has already happened. I always related this word with His second coming and did not connect it with his first coming. I never did a Parousia word study until now. Thank you for this correctionā¦ I receive it with gladness. This word is used 24 times in the New Testament to mean ācoming, arrival, personal presenceā. It is most often used to indicate the second coming and the arrival of the Son of God.
Moving onā¦
OT people could not get born again **before the cross.**They died with a sin or spiritual death nature. So when they died they went to Sheol/Hades. There were 2 compartments in Sheol/Hades one for the righteous and one for the unrighteous. (Luke 16:19-31 gives detail of this). In order for them to be able to go to Heaven they needed their natures changed. After Jesus death and resurrection he preached to the spirits in prison in order for them to receive the life of God or His nature and led captivity captive to Heaven. Eph 4:8. This involved the ādisobedientā in the times of Noah but only the ones who repented before they drowned in the flood.
Now after the cross we have access to the born again experience before we die. What happened in 1 Peter 3:18-19 will not happen again. OT people before the cross received salvation differently than we do after the cross. What was needed for them is no longer needed for us.
Theoretically if what I told you above were to be trueā¦ I think answering why God isnāt extending the not-yet reconciliation to people right now in hell yet He does extend it in the āage to comeā in the LOF needs to be addressed (since it is the topic of this thread ). Iām asking you to answer this, please :
If God is not extending the not-yet reconciliation to people in hell right now, why not? Why is God waiting for them to be resurrected unto judgment and not find them recorded in the BOL and throw them into the LOF? Why bother to do all that when He can extend the not-yet(reconciliation) in this age so the people in hell can be found recorded in the BOL?
How could an age mean forever? An age, ends. Thatās why it is an age. And age is a period of time. It can be a long time, but it eventually comes to an end. Forever is non-stop and just keeps going and going and going and never endsā¦
I dont get how you think they are the same thing.
Here are the examples of this being used:
āinto the age of the agesā
(Rev. 19:3).
(Rev. 20:10).
(Gal. 1:5)
(Phil. 4:20)
(1 Tim. 1:17).
(2 Tim. 4:18).
(Heb. 13:21).
(1 Pet. 4:11).
(Rev. 1:6).
(Rev. 1:18). (Rev. 4:9). (Rev. 4:10). (Rev. 5:13). (Rev. 7:12). (Rev. 10:6) (Rev. 11:15) (Rev. 15:7). (Rev. 22:5).
Jason whenever time permits can you respond to my last post to you before it gets buried in the off-topic comments. Thanks.
This is because you use the KJV only and believe itās translations are perfect as if God sat down and wrote it Himself.
You really need to do some history on translations and the words aion and aions and so on. Words that they translate as forever or forever and everā¦ so onā¦
I will post this link here for you to check outā¦ 
Come on, give it a peek. 
what-the-hell-is-hell.com/He ā¦ orever.htm
God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. (Ephesians 2:4-7)
This passage speaks of āthe coming agesā. So why should we believe in only two ages, the present one ,and that which is to come?
This is the only place in scripture where āages to comeā is mentioned in a future tense. Paul is not using this phrase to indicate future ages ( This would contradict Matt 12:32; Eph 1:21, etc) but only expressing himself about the future time where Christians āwill enjoy the surpassing riches of His graceā. Paul used this type of usage of āagesā to describe a very long time is also seen in Col 1:26. Paul is not saying that there are literally eternal past āagesā in Col 1:26, but that in long times past.
Matt 12:32
32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, **neither in this world, neither in the world to come.
**
Ephesians 1:21
21 Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come:
Caroleem, those verses above mean the same whatever translation you use. Look them up for yourself. I donāt need to use āThat word doesnāt really mean thatā or āGod didnāt really mean what he saidā¦He really meant thisā to defend my doctrine. I rather beat my head against a wall than to waste my time studying peoples bias translations of the words āaionā and āaionsā and so onā¦ I will just let the word and the verse speak for it self in context the way God wrote it instead of changing them to fit my theology 
I think your interpretation for Ephesians 2:7 is a little stretched. Why does an āage to comeā contradict a future plurality of ages? Excuse my lame metaphor (itās late, okay?), but imagine if you were present at a lavish banquet and were presently eating Hors DāOeuvres. If the waiter told you there would be more courses to follow, it would not be incoherent to still speak of the course to come (the ConsommĆ© Olga) and still expect this to be followed with Poached Salmon with Mousseline Sauce and Cucumbers, and then perhaps Filet Mignons Lili, and then Sirloin of Beef with Chateau Potatoes, to be followed with Roast Squab with Cress, and then Cold Asparagus Vinaigrette, and then Pate de Foie Gras, to be finally finished with Waldorf Pudding.
ā¦Waldorf Pudding is apparently the food equivalent of Yahweh being āall in allā if people did not catch this. I think Roast Squab with Cress is the Lake of Fire, but I would never insist on the interpretation of an apocalyptic metaphor.
Whereās the contradiction?
It canāt mean what you and paidion think it means, brothers. Jesus said they are 2 ages, this world and the world to come. Iām growing tired of being redundant explaining this. You can believe what you want to believe, brothers.
It seems your work here is done then eh?