22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Rom 9:22 (NKJV)
It's been said that Paul never addresses the subject of hell. But when I come to passages like this, I automatically go whoa.
So how do you view Rom 9:22?
Hey Brian :)
He gives an example in that chapter of what he means by destruction. Pharaoh was a vessel prepared for destruction, or being ruined, and he got exactly that, when every god he trusted in, including his own diety, was used against him and his people, and then he died in the Red Sea.
That verse used to trouble me because I always thought that the destruction was some final permanent state of a person, but one day I realized something I had never noticed before. He speaks about VESSELS being used for either mercy or destruction. The vessel is our physical body. We have an inner man though, so whatever these vessels experience, whether destruction or mercy, has as his goal the saving of the soul. In other words, I believe that while Pharaoh experienced destruction as to his vessel, he is experiencing the love and mercy of God as to his life now, in Christ.
Psa 30:5 For there is only a moment under His anger But a lifetime under His benevolence. In the evening, lamentation may lodge, But in the morning there is jubilant song."
Isa 54:8 In effervescent wrath I concealed My face a moment from you, yet with kindness eonian have I compassion on you,says your Redeemer, Yahweh."
Ron
Ron
:thumbsup:
hmmmnn....was Jesus Christ a vessel of mercy or a vessel of
wrath? Both? due to 'wrath' exhibited on his physical body
at the cross...that the vessel of mercy should pour out
mercy. the firstborn of the dead has a vessel fitted for
destruction[sin offering] and a vessel fitted for Glory[mercy]?
Is THAT WHY he is the saviour of both the dead and living?
just a few thoughts :2c:
Romans 9:22QuoteWhat if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath–fitted/ prepared for destruction.
Fitted= katartivzw
Katartivzw=To render or to fit.
To make sound or complete.
To mend what has been broken or rent.
To repair what has been broken or rent.
To put in order.
To arrange. To adjust.
To fit or frame for one's self.
To strengthen, to perfect, to complete.
To make one what he aught to be.
Dr. Marvin VincentFitted= kathrtismena=
Literally: adjusted or mended.
Quoteei de qelwn o qeoV endeixasqai thn orghn kai gnwrisai to dunaton autou hnegken en pollh makroqumia skeuh orghV kathrtismena eiV apwleian
God knew what our will would do before we knew what we would do with it. Our perfection cannot come about if God takes away that aspect of our will. God prepared the way for all our routes so that it would happen.
I can see how that would take Gods longsuffering.
Rom 9:21-23 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Seems to me that God divides between THE LIGHT and THE DARKNESS, THE DAY and THEY NIGHT, THE FLESH and THE SPIRIT.... the OUTWARD MAN and the INWARD MAN.
I see the outward man as "the vessel unto dishonour", that which is the "vessel of wrath fitted to destruction" and the inward man as the "vessel unto honour" or the "vessel of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory"
Quote from: Chris on January 16, 2010, 08:20:32 PM
Rom 9:21-23 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Seems to me that God divides between THE LIGHT and THE DARKNESS, THE DAY and THEY NIGHT, THE FLESH and THE SPIRIT.... the OUTWARD MAN and the INWARD MAN.
I see the outward man as "the vessel unto dishonour", that which is the "vessel of wrath fitted to destruction" and the inward man as the "vessel unto honour" or the "vessel of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory"
Do you think that's how Paul was perceiving it too when he wrote the epistles?
Quote from: Zeek on January 16, 2010, 08:22:07 PM
Quote from: Chris on January 16, 2010, 08:20:32 PM
Rom 9:21-23 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Seems to me that God divides between THE LIGHT and THE DARKNESS, THE DAY and THEY NIGHT, THE FLESH and THE SPIRIT.... the OUTWARD MAN and the INWARD MAN.
I see the outward man as "the vessel unto dishonour", that which is the "vessel of wrath fitted to destruction" and the inward man as the "vessel unto honour" or the "vessel of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory"
Do you think that's how Paul was perceiving it too when he wrote the epistles?
Why would I believe that is what it means if I believed that Paul was saying something different?
Quote from: Chris on January 16, 2010, 08:51:21 PM
Quote from: Zeek on January 16, 2010, 08:22:07 PM
Quote from: Chris on January 16, 2010, 08:20:32 PM
Rom 9:21-23 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Seems to me that God divides between THE LIGHT and THE DARKNESS, THE DAY and THEY NIGHT, THE FLESH and THE SPIRIT.... the OUTWARD MAN and the INWARD MAN.
I see the outward man as "the vessel unto dishonour", that which is the "vessel of wrath fitted to destruction" and the inward man as the "vessel unto honour" or the "vessel of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory"
Do you think that's how Paul was perceiving it too when he wrote the epistles?
Why would I believe that is what it means if I believed that Paul was saying something different?
I don't know, that's why i asked you. I can't answer my question to you.
Well if I rewrite Romans 9-11 using outer man and inner man it doesn't make sense to me. That's why I asked that. I believe Paul was talking about two different people's, not two natures within.
Rom 9:1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
Rom 9:2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
Rom 9:3 For I could wish that myself (inner man) were accursed from Christ for my brethren (outer man), my kinsmen (outer man) according to the flesh:
Rom 9:4 Who are Israelites (same lump); to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
Rom 9:5 Whose are (these outer men) the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen.
Rom 9:6 Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they (my outer man) are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
Rom 9:7 Neither, because they (the outer man) are the seed of Abraham, are they all children (outer and inner men): but, In Isaac (my inner man) shall thy seed be called.
Rom 9:8 That is, They (my outer man) which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God (my inner man): but the children of the promise (my inner man) are counted for the seed.
Rom 9:9 For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sarah shall have a son.
Rom 9:10 And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
Rom 9:11 (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
Rom 9:12 It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
Rom 9:13 As it is written, Jacob (my inner man) have I loved, but Esau (my outer man) have I hated.
Rom 9:14 What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
Rom 9:15 For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy (my inner man), and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion (my inner man).
Rom 9:16 So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy.
Rom 9:17 For the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up (my outer man), that I might show my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.
Rom 9:18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy (my inner man), and whom he will he hardeneth (my outer man).
Rom 9:19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will?
Rom 9:20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?
Rom 9:21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honor (my inner man), and another unto dishonor (my outer man)?
Rom 9:22 What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction (my outer man):
Rom 9:23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy (my inner man), which he had afore prepared unto glory,
Rom 9:24 Even us (my inner man) , whom he hath called, not of the Jews only (one part of my inner man), but also of the Gentiles (another part of my inner man)?
Rom 9:25 As he saith also in Hosea, I will call them my people (my inne man) , which were not my people (the lump); and her beloved (my inner man), which was not beloved (my outer man).
Rom 9:26 And it shall come to pass, that in the place where it was said unto them, Ye (my inner man) are not my people; there shall they (my inner man) be called the children of the living God.
Rom 9:27 Isaiah also crieth concerning Israel, Though the number of the children of Israel (lump) be as the sand of the sea, a remnant (my inner man) shall be saved:
Rom 9:28 For he will finish the work, and cut it short in righteousness: because a short work will the Lord make upon the earth.
Rom 9:29 And as Isaiah said before, Except the Lord of Sabaoth had left us a seed, we had been as Sodom, and been made like unto Gomorrah.
Rom 9:30 What shall we say then? That the Gentiles (inner man), which followed not after righteousness, have attained to righteousness, even the righteousness which is of faith.
Rom 9:31 But Israel (outer man), which followed after the law of righteousness, hath not attained to the law of righteousness.
Rom 9:32 Wherefore? Because they (my outer man) sought it not by faith, but as it were by the works of the law. For they (my outer man) stumbled at that stumblingstone;
Rom 9:33 As it is written, Behold, I lay in Zion a stumblingstone and rock of offense: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed (my inner man)
Rom 10:1 Brethren, my heart's desire and prayer to God for Israel (my outer man) is, that they (my outer man) might be saved.
Rom 10:2 For I (my inner man) bear them (my outer man) record that they (my outer man) have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge.
Rom 10:3 For they (my outer man) being ignorant of God's righteousness, and going about to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted themselves (my outer man) unto the righteousness of God.
Rom 10:4 For Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every one that believeth.
etc.
Rom 11:5 Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant (my inner man) according to the election of grace.
Rom 11:7 What then? Israel hath (my outer man) not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election (my inner man) hath obtained it, and the rest (my outer man) were blinded.
Rom 11:8 (According as it is written, God hath given them (my outer man) the spirit of slumber, eyes that they (my outer man) should not see, and ears that they should not hear;) unto this day.
Rom 11:9 And David saith, Let their table be made a snare, and a trap, and a stumblingblock, and a recompense unto them (my outer man):
Rom 11:10 Let their (my outer man) eyes be darkened, that they may not see, and bow down their back always.
etc.
To me doesn't make sense. In Galatians 4-5 Paul talks about "Ishmaels" and "Isaacs", with one (Ishmael) (the outer man) persecuting the "Isaaces" (inner man)
no, Paul, was beaten, persecuted and eventually killed by a "group of people", not by his outer man.
I'm not saying that your view of the "inner and outer man" is not another layer of how to perceive God's work in you; but I really don't think that Paul when he wrote his letters to a specific group of people, was using "us" and "them" allegorically to refer to his "inner battle"; but actually was encouraging them (those given faith) to remain faithful in spite of intense persecution from "them" (law abiding zealots). I personally think the "inner" application is just another way God has allowed us to grow into awareness of his love", but it mirrors most of the non christian mystical writings too, ie: budhism, tao, etc. even modern writers like Tolle. To die to the "outer man" (identity attached to self presevation) to reveal the LOVE within. They preach the same message, just don't use scripture.
jmo
jmo
Quote from: Zeek on January 16, 2010, 09:21:09 PM
I don't know, that's why i asked you. I can't answer my question to you.
I simply didn't see the point of the question, as it infers that even though I believe Paul was saying something else, that I just believe what I want to, anyway. :dontknow:
QuoteWell if I rewrite Romans 9-11 using outer man and inner man it doesn't make sense to me. That's why I asked that. I believe Paul was talking about two different people's, not two natures within.
As I have said many time before, IT IS BOTH. :winkgrin:
That which is manifested OUTWARDLY (tares or wheat) is based on whether one is walking IN THE FLESH or IN THE SPIRIT.
Is it not?
QuoteTo me doesn't make sense. In Galatians 4-5 Paul talks about "Ishmaels" and "Isaacs", with one (Ishmael) (the outer man) persecuting the "Isaaces" (inner man)
Are you claiming that the flesh (of which Ishmael is A FIGURE; just as CAIN was) does not "war against the spirit" (of which Isaac is A FIGURE, just as ABEL was)?
Again, that which is made manifest TO THE WORLD (outwards) is dependent upon that which is being MANIFESTED INWARDLY... whether it be "the flesh" or "the spirit".
Why look at it from only ONE perspective (the outward manifestation) when we are told to be looking upon that which IS NOT SEEN?
(That which IS SEEN is meant to reveal to us that which IS NOT SEEN.)
Look all the way back to Genesis....
CAIN (the FLESH) IS NOT COUNTED among "the generations of Adam"... IN THE DAY that God "created them in His image and after His likeness" (neither is ABEL.... ONLY SETH IS COUNTED).
Quoteno, Paul, was beaten, persecuted and eventually killed by a "group of people", not by his outer man.
And that "group of people" was walking IN THE FLESH, just as Paul was when he was persecuting the Christians and consenting to their deaths. Right?
Quote
I'm not saying that your view of the "inner and outer man" is not another layer of how to perceive God's work in you; but I really don't think that Paul when he wrote his letters to a specific group of people, was using "us" and "them" allegorically to refer to his "inner battle"; but actually was encouraging them (those given faith) to remain faithful in spite of intense persecution from "them" (law abiding zealots).
I agree.
But that which IS SEEN reveals that which IS NOT SEEN.
Paul addresses MANY things "according to the flesh", but they are meant to teach us SPIRITUAL truths, aren't they?
Paul used THE MARRIAGE relationship (addressing head coverings and wives submitting to their husband, etc) to teach truths about CHRIST AND THE CHURCH.
He used Adam and Eve when he said "I suffer not A WOMAN to teach, nor usurp authority over THE MAN".
Paul was NOT addressing THE FLESH. Paul was NOT saying that "women" are not allowed to teach or have authority in the church, that only "men" are. He was talking about THE WOMAN (the church) and THE MAN (Christ). But that is another topic.
QuoteI personally think the "inner" application is just another way God has allowed us to grow into awareness of his love", but it mirrors most of the non christian mystical writings too, ie: budhism, tao, etc. even modern writers like Tolle. To die to the "outer man" (identity attached to self presevation) to reveal the LOVE within. They preach the same message, just don't use scripture.
jmo
2Co 4:15-18 For all things are for your sakes, that the abundant grace might through the thanksgiving of many redound to the glory of God. For which cause we faint not; but
though our outward man perish, yet the inward man is renewed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, worketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory;
While we look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are not seen: for the things which are seen are temporal; but the things which are not seen are eternal.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: Chris on January 16, 2010, 10:03:39 PM
As I have said many time before, IT IS BOTH. :winkgrin:
Sorry Chris to skip over a bunch of your post to me, but i am off to my son's basketball game. But i do have a quick question re: "It's Both"
Do you see one of the "both", as being a "spiritual application" and the "other" as a "natural" application? and thereby by my assumption; would think that if you do see it this way; then the "natural" would be a "false way" to look at it, or should I say a "carnal way" and the other (inner/outer man) a "spiritual way??
or do you see both (one being an "us versus them", and the other an "inner/outer" application) as a "spiritual application"?
please don't infer anything into these questions if you can; they are genuine; with no "alterior sp?? motive". thanks.
Quote from: Zeek on January 16, 2010, 10:44:01 PM
Quote from: Chris on January 16, 2010, 10:03:39 PM
As I have said many time before, IT IS BOTH. :winkgrin:
Sorry Chris to skip over a bunch of your post to me, but i am off to my son's basketball game. But i do have a quick question re: "It's Both"
Do you see one of the "both", as being a "spiritual application" and the "other" as a "natural" application? and thereby by my assumption; would think that if you do see it this way; then the "natural" would be a "false way" to look at it, or should I say a "carnal way" and the other (inner/outer man) a "spiritual way??
or do you see both (one being an "us versus them", and the other an "inner/outer" application) as a "spiritual application"?
please don't infer anything into these questions if you can; they are genuine; with no "alterior sp?? motive". thanks.
If I am understanding what you are saying correctly then I would have to say the first; but, I am not saying that "the natural" is "false". Obviously that which we can see, that which is manifested outwardly through the natural (outward) man, is what it is. And it is no less true that those who walk "in the flesh" are manifested in the world/field as "tares". Just as those who walk "after the spirit" are manifested in the world as "wheat".
But those outward manifestations that can be applied to us "outwardly" (as 'individuals') are manifested inwardly as well.
Make sense?
Quote from: Zeek on January 16, 2010, 10:44:01 PM
Quote from: Chris on January 16, 2010, 10:03:39 PM
As I have said many time before, IT IS BOTH. :winkgrin:
Sorry Chris to skip over a bunch of your post to me, but i am off to my son's basketball game. But i do have a quick question re: "It's Both"
Do you see one of the "both", as being a "spiritual application" and the "other" as a "natural" application? and thereby by my assumption; would think that if you do see it this way; then the "natural" would be a "false way" to look at it, or should I say a "carnal way" and the other (inner/outer man) a "spiritual way??
or do you see both (one being an "us versus them", and the other an "inner/outer" application) as a "spiritual application"?
please don't infer anything into these questions if you can; they are genuine; with no "alterior sp?? motive". thanks.
This "first the natural and then the spiritual" thing has IMO many witnesses in scripture
Although we see it in things like shaking the earth and the heavens we also see it in Jesus in the natural and then Him in the spirit within us......... God formed the body of man (natural) from the dust before giving it life when He breathed the spirit that is His breath into the form made from the earth giving it life.
Still I believe one of the most important understandings of first the natural comes in our interpretation of the law given to Moses. First it is taught to us in "the natuarl" as "do not do this or do not do that" so to speak but then as Christians start making the transition to "come up hither" in our journey they learn to understand the law to be spiritual just as Paul did.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sinPeter too came to understand this in his vision when he found that all the time that he had been taught in the natural that certain things could not be eaten but that they really could be because the dietary laws as well as the laws for determining the truth are pertaining to how we "eat and digest" the word that is the body of Christ. This is so that in us too Jesus Christ who is the Word made flesh may be made Christ in us again. :bgdance:
Blessings
Doug
Hey guys -
I think you might be trying to spiritualize this passage too much.
Romans chapters 9-11 are all about Paul answering this question: "but what about the promises that God made to the nation of Israel? Has He forsaken His elect?" So then the vessels in question are not individuals, but nations. The first nation is Edom, identified by the name of it's founder, Esau. The second nation is Egypt, identified by the name of it's leader, Pharoah. The third "nation" is the Body of Christ, identified by it's members, we who are called out from many nations.
In 9:31 Paul picks up the question again and after discussing the state of Israel at that time and warning the Gentile believers not to get cocky, he builds to the beautiful climax in chapter 11:26-36 - after the fulness of the gentiles will come in then ALL Israel would be saved, for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable and God has shut up all in disobedience so that He might show mercy to ALL. To Him be the glory forever, Amen.
Quote from: Mr.Irrelevant on January 21, 2010, 07:05:42 PM
Hey guys -
I think you might be trying to spiritualize this passage too much.
Romans chapters 9-11 are all about Paul answering this question: "but what about the promises that God made to the nation of Israel? Has He forsaken His elect?" So then the vessels in question are not individuals, but nations. The first nation is Edom, identified by the name of it's founder, Esau. The second nation is Egypt, identified by the name of it's leader, Pharoah. The third "nation" is the Body of Christ, identified by it's members, we who are called out from many nations.
In 9:31 Paul picks up the question again and after discussing the state of Israel at that time and warning the Gentile believers not to get cocky, he builds to the beautiful climax in chapter 11:26-36 - after the fulness of the gentiles will come in then ALL Israel would be saved, for the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable and God has shut up all in disobedience so that He might show mercy to ALL. To Him be the glory forever, Amen.
How can we 'spiritualize too much' the Word that is spirit. I think often the problem is is that we don't spiritualize it enough.
cp
QuoteHow can we 'spiritualize too much' the Word that is spirit. I think often the problem is is that we don't spiritualize it enough.
cp
Bingo!!! :thumbsup:
Blessings to you
Doug
Quote from: Brian on January 16, 2010, 02:15:42 PM
22 What if God, wanting to show His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath prepared for destruction." Rom 9:22 (NKJV)
It's been said that Paul never addresses the subject of hell. But when I come to passages like this, I automatically go whoa.
So how do you view Rom 9:22?
Real facts on Destruction!!!!
A word, whose primary meaning is to deprive of life cannot have a secondary meaning of a state of life. Life is not a secondary meaning of death. Our Lord said to His disciples, "He that findeth his life (psuche, soul) shall lose it, and he that loses (apollumi) his life (psuche, soul) shall find it." (Matt. 10:39, compare Mark 8:35, Luke 9:24, and 17:33) Is our Lord urging them to commit suicide? The text refers to the destruction of the soul. Please note the Greek text reads "psuche" soul, not "zoe" life, as the
King's translators translated this passage. The destruction of the soul
does not mean death, it means to forgo the pleasure of life and endure the suffering due to faithfulness to Christ. Surely, no one will argue that "He that loses (apollumi) his soul" for Christ will be destroyed without hope of life later. Many Christians martyrs were destroyed by burning at the stake. Their souls were destroyed but who will argue that they will not be resurrected in the future and enjoy immortality.
I believe there is one paramount scripture that should teach us what the word "apollumi" means. "For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which is lost (apollumi)." (Luke 19:10) This passage refers specifically to Zacchaeus; he was lost, destroyed.
Because he was lost, he was ready to be found and saved. The theory of most false definitions of "apollumi" is to prove that the word means "death" from which there is no resurrection, practical annihilation, a state from which salvation is impossible. This passage directly destroys this theory. Instead of the lost being beyond salvation,
they alone are eligible for salvation. You cannot rescue a man who is save and sound. It is only when a man is in the state denoted by "apollumi" that salvation can operate in his behalf. Antithetical statements such as this are of great value in the study of words. The terms "seek" and "save," are accurate indications of the
opposite of destroy. One who is "destroyed" must be lost or no one would seek him. He must be in a state which calls for salvation or Christ would not have come for him. This proves that destruction is a
salvable condition, not a state beyond the reach of deliverance. Add to this the fact
only the "lost" are "saved" and it reverses the usual theory of "destruction." God seeks what he has "lost." It is a sad fact that most Christians believe that Jesus is seeking to save the "lost" yet on the other hand they do not believe that He will save the "lost." They do not believe that Jesus will save "lost" mankind. Thus Jesus will not be successful in seeking and saving the lost.
"Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished (apollumi)." (1 Cor. 15:18) Are the Christians who are now sleeping deprived of future life? They are at present time "perished." They are now deprived of life, but in the future, they will be resurrected to life that is immortal.
"But if thy brother be grieve with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitable, destroy (apollumi) not him with thy meat for whom Christ died." (Rom. 14:15, compare 1 Cor. 8:11) According to these scriptures, we can destroy one of our brethren
by eating foods which he deems unclean. Does our eating deprive him of life? That would be
an easy way to commit legal murder.
Destruction is a relative term. The coin was lost in relation to the woman. (Luke 15:8,9) The sheep was destroyed as regards to the shepherd. (Luke 15:4-7) The prodigal son had perished in relation to his father. (Luke 15:11-32) So with the destroyed sheep
of the house of Israel. (Matt. 10:5,6) They were not deprived of life, they were away from the great shepherd, their Creator. The prodigals were far off from their father who created them, who loves them, who commissioned His Son Jesus to come to seek and save them. Does this prove they were outside of this affair of salvation? It proves the opposite. Destruction is a prelude to salvation. It never means ultimate annihilation.
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/EternalDeath.html by Gary Amirault.
copied by Lee Damboise II