Tom, if what you believe is true, how do you explain the fact that the resurrected sinners are neither slain or destroyed during their initial exposure to the truth or to the glory of God nor do they desire to die?

To sin, wherever found, "our God is a consuming fire." Heb. 12:29. In all who submit to His power the Spirit of God will consume sin. But if men cling to sin, they become identified with it. Then the glory of God, which destroys sin, must destroy them. (DA 107)

With these things in mind - Will Jesus change our character when He returns?

Or, must the necessary and required changes happen before we die? How does this apply to the thief on the cross? Did he change his character sufficiently so that no further changes were necessary for him to be admitted to heaven?

Or, did he possess certain unknown defective character traits that must be dealt with en route to heaven before being admitted therein?

Tom, if what you believe is true, how do you explain the fact that the resurrected sinners are neither slain or destroyed during their initial exposure to the truth or to the glory of God nor do they desire to die?

Those who accept Christ as their personal Savior (assuming they don't turn away from Christ) go to heaven when they die.

Specifically you are assuming that one cannot have unknown defective character traits and go to heaven. But having unknown defective character traits has never been a test. The thief on the cross accepted Christ, so he is fine.

Tom, if what you believe is true, how do you explain the fact that the resurrected sinners are neither slain or destroyed during their initial exposure to the truth or to the glory of God nor do they desire to die?

You didn't address this question. Quoting DA 107 does not address it.

Originally Posted By: Tom
Those who accept Christ as their personal Savior (assuming they don't turn away from Christ) go to heaven when they die.

"When they die"? Don't you mean when Jesus returns?

Originally Posted By: Tom
Specifically you are assuming that one cannot have unknown defective character traits and go to heaven. But having unknown defective character traits has never been a test. The thief on the cross accepted Christ, so he is fine.

What constitutes an "unknown defective trait of character"?

That has been my question from the beginning. Do you still agree it cannot include habits that cause people to despise the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

MM: Tom, if what you believe is true, how do you explain the fact that the resurrected sinners are neither slain or destroyed during their initial exposure to the truth or to the glory of God nor do they desire to die? You didn't address this question. Quoting DA 107 does not address it.

TE: Yes I did. I didn't just quote DA 107. What I wrote following that was also addressing this question.

MM: What constitutes an "unknown defective trait of character"? That has been my question from the beginning. Do you still agree it cannot include habits that cause people to despise the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

TE: A defective trait of which one is unaware. People can despise the Gospel of Jesus Christ for any reason, can't they? What would be an example of something for which a person could not despise the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Judas despised the Gospel of Jesus Christ because it didn't involve a kindgom that would be established on the basis of selfish glory.

GC 662 does not agree with your interpretation and application of the principles outlined in DA 107.

Again, the resurrected sinners are neither slain or destroyed during their initial exposure to the truth or to the glory of God. Nor do they desire to die. You have yet to explain this truth.

TE: A defective trait of which one is unaware. People can despise the Gospel of Jesus Christ for any reason, can't they? What would be an example of something for which a person could not despise the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Judas despised the Gospel of Jesus Christ because it didn't involve a kingdom that would be established on the basis of selfish glory.

Are you suggesting Judas' selfishness constitutes an example of an unknown defective trait of character which God waits to reveal to people because it would be too painful for them to confront and confess and crucify before they experience the miracle of rebirth?

MM: What constitutes an "unknown defective trait of character"? That has been my question from the beginning. Do you still agree it cannot include habits that cause people to despise the Gospel of Jesus Christ?

It does! I formulated by understanding of GC 662 precisely because of DA 107. Otoh, I've not seen you incorporate DA 107, or DA 764, or GC 541-543 into your thoughts regarding GC 662 at all.

They're irrelevant to my view. There's nothing to explain. DA 107, nor the other passages, do not discuss "initial exposures" to truth. This is an idea you have. I've never said anything about "initial exposures."

No. I was pointing out that Judas despised the Gospel of Jesus Christ because it didn't involve a kingdom that would be established on the basis of selfish glory. Thus Judas despised the Gospel of Jesus Christ even though Jesus had done nothing wrong.

You asked:



I pointed out that people can reject the Gospel for many reasons, including reasons which do not involve wrongdoing on the part of the one whom they are using as a scapegoat for their rejection.

Regarding the destruction of the wicked, we're discussing this on another thread. Rather than repeat my whole post there, I'll just point out that she writes that the same thing that gives life to the righteous is what slays the wicked, so unless literal fire gives life to the righteous, I think that pretty much puts an end to the idea that literal fire slays the wicked.

Regarding your last question, you ask questions that have false assumptions in them (at least, what I would regard as false assumptions) routinely, and that makes them difficult to respond to, as I have to deal with the false assumption, meaning I don't really get to the question. Here the false assumption is highlighted by the word "still." I've been disagreeing with you all along. I've never agree with what you're saying in the first place. What you are considering as my agreeing with you was my disagreeing with another question you put in way that couldn't be answered "no." The fact that I couldn't answer the question "no," didn't mean I was agreeing with you then either.

I've been pointing out to you that people can despise the Gospel of Christ even if one does nothing wrong. Given this to be the case, the answer to your question must be "no," since people can despise the Gospel for reasons including sinful habits, non-sinful habits, or no habits at all.

TE:Regarding the destruction of the wicked, we're discussing this on another thread. Rather than repeat my whole post there, I'll just point out that she writes that the same thing that gives life to the righteous is what slays the wicked, so unless literal fire gives life to the righteous, I think that pretty much puts an end to the idea that literal fire slays the wicked.

MM:Did literal fire give or take life in the furnace on the plain of Dura?

Regarding your last question, you ask questions that have false assumptions in them (at least, what I would regard as false assumptions) routinely, and that makes them difficult to respond to, as I have to deal with the false assumption, meaning I don't really get to the question. Here the false assumption is highlighted by the word "still." I've been disagreeing with you all along. I've never agree with what you're saying in the first place. What you are considering as my agreeing with you was my disagreeing with another question you put in way that couldn't be answered "no." The fact that I couldn't answer the question "no," didn't mean I was agreeing with you then either.

I've been pointing out to you that people can despise the Gospel of Christ even if one does nothing wrong. Given this to be the case, the answer to your question must be "no," since people can despise the Gospel for reasons including sinful habits, non-sinful habits, or no habits at all.

What are you saying then? Will people who come up in the first resurrection have cultivated sinful traits of character that must be changed before they can enter heaven?

If not, does that mean they crucified them before they died? if so, how does this apply to the thief on the cross?

TE:Regarding the destruction of the wicked, we're discussing this on another thread. Rather than repeat my whole post there, I'll just point out that she writes that the same thing that gives life to the righteous is what slays the wicked, so unless literal fire gives life to the righteous, I think that pretty much puts an end to the idea that literal fire slays the wicked.

MM:Did literal fire give or take life in the furnace on the plain of Dura?

TE: Did literal fire give life to the righteous on the plain of Dura?

TE: Regarding your last question, you ask questions that have false assumptions in them (at least, what I would regard as false assumptions) routinely, and that makes them difficult to respond to, as I have to deal with the false assumption, meaning I don't really get to the question. Here the false assumption is highlighted by the word "still." I've been disagreeing with you all along. I've never agree with what you're saying in the first place. What you are considering as my agreeing with you was my disagreeing with another question you put in way that couldn't be answered "no." The fact that I couldn't answer the question "no," didn't mean I was agreeing with you then either.

I've been pointing out to you that people can despise the Gospel of Christ even if one does nothing wrong. Given this to be the case, the answer to your question must be "no," since people can despise the Gospel for reasons including sinful habits, non-sinful habits, or no habits at all.

MM: What are you saying then? Will people who come up in the first resurrection have cultivated sinful traits of character that must be changed before they can enter heaven?

TE: This is kind of a pointless question, isn't it? If they are in the first resurrection, they are going to heaven, so how could they have any cultivated sinful traits of character that must changed before they can enter heaven, since they're there?

Anyway, focusing on cultivated sinful traits isn't the right thing to focus on, IMO. If a person is right with God, the character will testify to that. It is not cultivated sinful traits that keep out of heaven, but rejection of the Holy Spirit. One is a cause, the other a symptom. The root problem must be taken care of; just treating the symptom without getting at the root won't work.

MM: If not, does that mean they crucified them before they died? if so, how does this apply to the thief on the cross?

TE: The thief on the cross is a good example of my point. Obviously he didn't have time to deal with every sinful habit, but he had time to repent of the ones the Holy Spirit convicted him of, and that was enough. He could go to heaven because he was right with God, which is the requirement. This requirement is not an arbitrary one, God has no arbitrary rules which must be met, but simply reflects the reality of the situation, which is that one must be right with God to spend eternity in heaven (and the new earth) because otherwise one would be miserable. God would be subjecting such a one to the equivalent of endless torment.

Christ saw the thief on the cross would be happy in paradise, and that was enough. Certainly Christ did not have time to go through an inventory of every sinful habit. What did Christ see? He saw a person who was repentant; He recognized he was talking to one who was responding to the Holy Spirit, which was manifest in the thief's being able to recognize who Christ was.

That was enough for Christ. He assured him he would be in paradise.