Universal Reconciliation

[the rookie]

Absolutely. Defeated, then ultimately destroyed.

[LightofTabor]

So how do you square the fact that both the lake of fire and the death/resurrection of Christ destroy death?

Absolutely. Defeated, then ultimately destroyed.

[the rookie]

The victory of Christ that defeats death (it has no sting, or negative consequence for me that hinders my destiny in Christ) is the basis of His authority to ultimately destroy it...via the lake of fire.

It is not "destroyed" now. Folks still get cancer. They get old. They die. But the believer need not be troubled, as Paul stated in 1 Thess. 4. The unbeliever will also be raised, but experience a "second death" in the Lake of Fire, where the enemies of God are cast.

[LightofTabor]

Scriptures say that the death and resurrection of Jesus destroys death. Scriptures also say that the lake of fire destroys death. It's not the case that the lake of fire does what the cross/resurrection could not do, namely destroy death once and for all. The only coherent conclusion to draw here is that the second death is identical to the death of Christ.

The victory of Christ that defeats death (it has no sting, or negative consequence for me that hinders my destiny in Christ) is the basis of His authority to ultimately destroy it...via the lake of fire.

It is not "destroyed" now. Folks still get cancer. They get old. They die. But the believer need not be troubled, as Paul stated in 1 Thess. 4. The unbeliever will also be raised, but experience a "second death" in the Lake of Fire, where the enemies of God are cast.

[the rookie]

Why not quote some of those scriptures so that we can determine whether or not "the only coherent conclusion to draw" is the one you happen to like?

Otherwise, I'm going with the only coherent conclusion: that the cross was the "what" and the lake of fire is part of the "how".

The idea that "the second death" is identical to the death of Christ is called either (1) a leap of logic, or (2) an eisegetical conclusion, or both. I pick, "both".

[LightofTabor]

I've already supplied two verses that are sufficient to make my point (2 Tim.1:10 and Rev. 20:14).

Otherwise, I'm going with the only coherent conclusion: that the cross was the "what" and the lake of fire is part of the "how".

Can you elaborate on what you mean?

The idea that "the second death" is identical to the death of Christ is called either (1) a leap of logic, or (2) an eisegetical conclusion, or both. I pick, "both".

How so?

The only way out of this conclusion is to suggest that the lake of fire and the death/resurrection of Christ "destroys" death in two different senses of the word.

[the rookie]

No, they're not.

1. Telling me who the law was made for doesn't prove your point.

2. Quoting the scripture that contains the phrase in question as if it proves your point is called "circular reasoning".

[LightofTabor]

1. I meant to say 2 Tim.1:10.

2. I don't know what you're referring to.

No, they're not.

1. Telling me who the law was made for doesn't prove your point.

2. Quoting the scripture that contains the phrase in question as if it proves your point is called "circular reasoning".

[the rookie]

1. I meant to say 2 Tim.1:10.

2. I don't know what you're referring to.

1. In which Paul is sharing right before his...death.

2. Quoting the scripture as if it proves your point is circular. Stating that, "the second death is identical to the death of Christ" and then quoting Rev. 20:14 to prove your point....doesn't prove your point.

[LightofTabor]

1. I don't know what point you are trying to make. If its that death is still in existence, then yes, I know that.

2. You asked me to provide some scriptures, and so I did. Rev. 20:14 says that death is destroyed by the lake of fire. 2 Tim. 1:10 states that death is destroyed by death of Christ. The the former verse, the lake of fire is the "how", just as the cross is the "how" in the latter verse.

1. In which Paul is sharing right before his...death.

2. Quoting the scripture as if it proves your point is circular. Stating that, "the second death is identical to the death of Christ" and then quoting Rev. 20:14 to prove your point....doesn't prove your point.

[the rookie]

1. I don't know what point you are trying to make. If its that death is still in existence, then yes, I know that.

So when is death destroyed?

2. You asked me to provide some scriptures, and so I did. Rev. 20:14 says that death is destroyed by the lake of fire. 2 Tim. 1:10 states that death is destroyed by death of Christ. The the former verse, the lake of fire is the "how", just as the cross is the "how" in the latter verse.

No, Rev. 20:14 says that death is "cast into the Lake of Fire". You're adding "destroyed". 2 Tim. 1:10 says, "abolished", or, "made useless" (or, in 1 Cor. 15:26, "done away with").

[LightofTabor]

Death will be destroyed finally when all other enemies of God are subjected to Christ.

Destruction of death is certainly in view in 2 Tim. 1:10 and 1 Cor. 15:26, there can be no dispute about that. So what do you think the fire does to death, if not destroy it?

So when is death destroyed?



No, Rev. 20:14 says that death is "cast into the Lake of Fire". You're adding "destroyed". 2 Tim. 1:10 says, "abolished", or, "made useless" (or, in 1 Cor. 15:26, "done away with").

[the rookie]

Death will be destroyed finally when all other enemies of God are subjected to Christ.

Well, that's quite a bit different than, "the second death is identical to the death of Christ".

Destruction of death is certainly in view in 2 Tim. 1:10 and 1 Cor. 15:26, there can be no dispute about that. So what do you think the fire does to death, if not destroy it?

Wait a minute - so we now have to assume (or, infer) that fire destroys death, even though the passage does not say that? Again, isn't that circular reasoning? (or, "assuming what you are trying to prove")

[LightofTabor]

Well, that's quite a bit different than, "the second death is identical to the death of Christ".

I don't see it as any different at all. It is the death of Christ which destroys death, even if this happens in the future.

Wait a minute - so we now have to assume (or, infer) that fire destroys death, even though the passage does not say that? Again, isn't that circular reasoning? (or, "assuming what you are trying to prove"

It's not circular logic. I'm not reading these ideas into the text; I get these ideas from the text. Seriously, what do you propose happens to death once it is thrown into the lake of fire. Does it just slow roast for all eternity? Nay, it is consumed by the consuming fire of God.

[the rookie]

I don't see it as any different at all. It is the death of Christ which destroys death, even if this happens in the future.

That is still a very different statement than, "the second death is identical to the death of Christ." One thing (from the past) abolishing another thing (in the future) equals two things with a relationship, not the same thing.

It's not circular logic. I'm not reading these ideas into the text; I get these ideas from the text. Seriously, what do you propose happens to death once it is thrown into the lake of fire. Does it just slow roast for all eternity? Nay, it is consumed by the consuming fire of God.

You say that the text says it, then use the text to support what you say. That's circular. Inconveniently, the text doesn't say it. If you have to follow a scripture reference that does not contain the words that prove your point with an interpretation that proves your point....again, that's circular.

What happens when death is thrown into the fire? The same thing that happens to "...the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars" They "shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." This is very different than the death of Christ, from what I can see.