Why do Calvinists debate?

[Josheb]

We can throw texts at each other all day long.

I assume you know what a straw man is but for the sake of clarity I'll explain it. A straw man occurs whenever anyone, regardless of their respective position, takes someone else's position, changes it, and then presents that change as the original position and argues against the misrepresentation. An example of a straw man occurring in this thread is the idea Total Depravity is solely Calvinist when, in fact, most non-Pelagian synergists (like Arminius) also subscribe to the position sinners cannot and do not come to God for salvation in their own might. Another example of a straw man is arguing Irresistible Grace (IG), otherwise known as Effectual Grace (EG), means humans cannot resist God. The facts are that IG is also known as EG because IG has nothing to do with the sinner's ability to resist God and everyone and anyone who has ever read the Bible recognizes people resist God quite often and Calvinism never argues contrary to the obvious.

I am not sure, however, that you know, understand, and actively seek to avoid other logical fallacies. For example, this premise of "throwing texts" isn't just a straw man. I have not "thrown" any text at anyone in this thread. The problem here, however, is not simply the misrepresentation of what has occurred but the implied derision inherent in the label "thrown." Logically speaking, this is called an appeal to ridicule, or the practice of impugning a post via some derogatory label and then arguing against the mockery when it is the mockery that is misguided, not the post being impugned. What I have done is post scripture and explicit scripture. In most cases when I post a scripture the scripture explicitly states what I said in my post. I did not post an inferential reading of scripture, nor did I post an inferential explanation of inferentially read scripture. You do that.




When I do not have a clear, unqualified explicit statement in scripture I use whole scripture. What I did, using the long-held, well-tested, historically accepted, objectively verifiable sound rules of proper exegesis, and worked outward from one verse through its immediately surrounding texts, the text's stated contexts, the texts stated references found elsewhere in scripture, and other passages to which the text itself connects the reader. In other words, Not once have I ever randomly, wantonly, or doctrinally selected two or more passages and forced them to be read together. You have done that.

Post #347 takes a concept that scripture itself asserts - AND ASSERTS REPEATEDLY - and applied it to the premises you brought up: hearing and the heart. You brought up the subject, not me. You selected one single verse and removed it from its surrounding text. I did not do that. You not only separated the one verse from the text in which it occurs you completely ignored all the contexts inherent in the text, beginning with a correct identifying of the author and his original audience and his original intent. I did not do that. Scripture has a LOT to say about how knowledge, understanding, wisdom, and hearing occur. I sampled only a smidgen of it. You did nothing. You read inferences into the Roman 10:10 text. I do not. I will readily acknowledge the verse could be read with a "psychological" or Provisionist interpretation if and when only that verse is read, but those interpretations are not possible when the rest of the text and the whole of scripture are considered. The larger Romans 10 text precludes a synergistic reading. If I conclude the verse in question is written from, to, and about Christians and not non-Christians it is because the text itself evidences and then proves that position, NOT because I have a doctrinal bias deciding the matter for me. That is what you do.

When I post scripture, it is because I assume we all consider scripture as the authoritative measure of all our posts. I assume we all can and will read a text first for what it states and what it does not state, and we'll all do that before reading anything else into the text. For example, I posted five different passages that all say the same thing. I could have added others but didn't for the sake of space. Every single one of those passages explicitly states it is God hardening the heart (whether the heart was already hardened). Every single one of those passages explicitly reports God is precluding the relevant group's ability to understand. Every single one of those passages clearly states the people see and hear but do not perceive or understand. Every single one of those passages also states - I did not read this into the text - the reason for their not understanding was so they would not be healed. Do I deny a correlating psychology? No! What I stand on, and do so firmly, is what is explicitly stated in the text itself without embellishment, inference, or "interpretation."

I aggravate a lot of people this way because a lot of people think they read scripture as written and do not like be shown that is not the case, so don't feel too bad about this.


You may "throw" scripture, but I do not, and I do not appreciate my posts being derisively mischaracterized by that moniker. I the book of Romans explicitly states the book was written to the saints then bow to that fact, bend your doctrine to that fact, and post accordingly. If the "us" and "we" of chapter 10 is the saints and NOT the unregenerate non-believer, then bow to that fact, bend your doctrine to that fact, and post accordingly. Do not apply to the unregenerate words written about the regenerate. If the prophets, the gospel writers, and the epistle writers all spoke of God giving knowledge and never states knowledge occurs organically within the sinner in any manner contradictory to Total Depravity (which you said you accepted as a valid contribution to theology) then bow to that fact, bend your doctrine to that fact, and post accordingly.


Romans 10:10 cannot be read the way you've read it. The synergistic inferential reading is not a challenge to Calvinism because the text has to be abused to make it say the belief and confession come from the sinfully dead and enslaved unregenerate, Spirit-absent flesh.






No "throwing" scripture required.

 

[Josheb]

So why does Jesus Christ warn about hell if God already decided who would end up there?

Do you understand how tiresome that question is?



Calvinism teaches humans caused their own sinfulness and the corresponding fate, and it teaches that position firmly standing on scripture. All have sinned, all have fallen short of God's glory, and the wages of sin is death. If God had not intervened then all would end up in hell. So when you ask, "So why does Jesus Christ warn about hell if God already decided who would end up there?" that question is a wretched straw man that perverts both God's word and Calvinist soteriology. It's also a red herring.

God decides who goes to heaven. The population from which He selects those individuals is the population where everyone is headed to hell by their own hand. God is not the author of sin and what He ordained dd no violence to the human will.

The question also conflates categories and implicitly assumes an explanation in exclusion of several. For example, Jesus could easily (and did) have warned those he knew would not and could not change simply so they'd be without excuse, unable to say, "But we did not know!" when their end arrived. Jesus could have (and did) warned those who would not and could not change simply as a warning to the others, a contrast to those who would be saved to highlight God's grace and promote gratitude. God could have warned a large group of people knowing God would save some that day, others next month, others ten years later, and some never. Jesus could have warned people simply and solely to highlight their bondage and inability - that would be a particularly applicable explanation for any group legalistically dependent on the Law of Moses in their misguided belief the Law could save apart from the one about whom it testified. In other words, there are plenty of explanations aside from the synergist's volitional psychological explanation.

In other words, it is a very obtuse question, one people should always think about before asking because its nonsense is prima facie, not just an ugly, nonsensical strawman commonly employed against Calvinism.

If a man is condemned, then it is solely by his own hand and if he is saved then it is soley by God's hand.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Do you understand how tiresome that question is?

No, I actually don't because I'm not you.

Calvinism teaches humans caused their own sinfulness and the corresponding fate, and it teaches that position firmly standing on scripture. All have sinned, all have fallen short of God's glory, and the wages of sin is death. If God had not intervened then all would end up in hell. So when you ask, "So why does Jesus Christ warn about hell if God already decided who would end up there?" that question is a wretched straw man that perverts both God's word and Calvinist soteriology. It's also a red herring.

That's funny because I've read most Calvinist literatures that exist and somehow your interpretation is different to mine.

God decides who goes to heaven. The population from which He selects those individuals is the population where everyone is headed to hell by their own hand. God is not the author of sin and what He ordained dd no violence to the human will.

Isaiah 45:7 begs to differ. As does Genesis and Amos. However, saying "God is not the author of sin" is correct; your logic after that fails. And nowhere does the Bible teach that humans are made for hell because they have no free will and that they deserve it because they are born sinners headed there anyway. That is a popular interpretation made by some people but cannot be bourn out in the scriptures themselves. A careful reading of Romans 9 doesn't support that view. Rather, it makes it clear that people resist God (the Holy Spirit) unless God gives them over.

Moreover, you literally just contradicted yourself in 2 sentences. If God sends people to heaven then He also sends people to hell, but you just said, against Calvinist soteriology and theology, that people send themselves to hell "by their own hand". I know this is tough for you to reconcile, but that is because it is a paradox that causes cognitive dissonance. It's not your fault.

The question also conflates categories and implicitly assumes an explanation in exclusion of several. For example, Jesus could easily (and did) have warned those he knew would not and could not change simply so they'd be without excuse, unable to say, "But we did not know!" when their end arrived. Jesus could have (and did) warned those who would not and could not change simply as a warning to the others, a contrast to those who would be saved to highlight God's grace and promote gratitude.

Contradicted yourself again.

God could have warned a large group of people knowing God would save some that day, others next month, others ten years later, and some never. Jesus could have warned people simply and solely to highlight their bondage and inability - that would be a particularly applicable explanation for any group legalistically dependent on the Law of Moses in their misguided belief the Law could save apart from the one about whom it testified. In other words, there are plenty of explanations aside from the synergist's volitional psychological explanation.

Synergism and monergism have nothing to do with the fact the scriptures have warnings about going to hell by Jesus himself in contrast to God sending people there anyway.

In other words, it is a very obtuse question, one people should always think about before asking because its nonsense is prima facie, not just an ugly, nonsensical strawman commonly employed against Calvinism.

So you are a Calvinist then? It's good to get that correct off the first bat. Now we know that, we also know that a common "Calvinist" position is to accuse their objectors as being too thick to understand their point of view, which is exactly what you have done here, which constitutes an ad hominem fallacy.

If a man is condemned, then it is solely by his own hand and if he is saved then it is soley by God's hand.

Contradiction incarnate.

 

[Josheb]

No, I actually don't because I'm not you.

Thank you for your time. You may ask that question a million times and no answer will ever satisfy you because it is the question that is wrong. If you were me, you'd see that. If you knew anything about soteriology, you'd see that, so you do not have to be me to see it.

 

[Arial]

But what does Romans 9:22 mean since you bring it up? I would truly be interested in knowing.

You have not answered. Is it none of my business?

 

[Arial]

This picture of God does not comport with God being love.

You are presenting the same arguments that Paul was presented with in the book of Romans. And in the book of Romans Paul is defending and teaching every single doctrine that we find in TULIP. I would ask you to read the entire book of Romans when you get the time, just as it was read in the church at Rome, a letter, not separate chapters and verses; and without prejudice. That of course is very difficult to do, prayer to have Paul's actual meaning revealed to you beforehand, and a recognition of when your presuppositions and feelings have gotten in the way, is mandatory. IOW a desire for what is truth, no matter the cost to your traditions. The only thing it will hurt is possibly pride, and the joy that follows afterward will make you doubly grateful for the humbling effect.

 

[Arial]

That's funny because I've read most Calvinist literatures that exist and somehow your interpretation is different to mine.

First of all that is a gross misrepresentation of your familiarity with Calvinism as so vast is that literature that I doubt if anyone has read most of it. Aside from that what your interpretation is in comparison to someone else's is completely irrelevant. I have ascertained in what little you say that your interpretation of the theology and doctrines is off base. And if you refer to interpretations of scripture is different than Reformed, that too is irrelevant as a valid defense.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

First of all that is a gross misrepresentation of your familiarity with Calvinism as so vast is that literature that I doubt if anyone has read most of it. Aside from that what your interpretation is in comparison to someone else's is completely irrelevant. I have ascertained in what little you say that your interpretation of the theology and doctrines is off base. And if you refer to interpretations of scripture is different than Reformed, that too is irrelevant as a valid defense.

That just because you aren't as intelligent or as well read as me. There's no other reason.

 

[Dave_Regenerated]

Thank you for your time. You may ask that question a million times and no answer will ever satisfy you because it is the question that is wrong. If you were me, you'd see that. If you knew anything about soteriology, you'd see that, so you do not have to be me to see it.

My question was for you and people that hold your view, not for myself. I don't routinely lie to myself. But I'm sure there are people that do do that.

 

[Josheb]

I don't routinely lie to myself.

The question asked proves otherwise.

 

[GoKart Mozart]

You didn't answer the question.

Nor have you clarified your comment that I inquired about, prior to your question. Unless this counts:

Whatever God has revealed to them.

The question was, if what one believes about the person and work of Jesus does not determine salvation, then what does?

Again, it was you who said, "what one believes.. determines salvation.."
Maybe we agree, maybe we don't. You haven't clarified. I can't offer agreement nor an alternative because I don't know what your "what" is.
I tend to think it would have to be something simple enough that even a child could understand.

But you seem to be interpreting what Reformed theology teaches about election and confusing that with salvation. The TULIP is not discussing the faith that saves..

Are you saying that TULIP plays no role in reformed soteriology? That would indeed be news to me.

You are not aware of Calvinism as presented in TULIP or you would not repeat it as something other than it is. There is no prerequisite on man The prerequisite for any to be in Christ is all done by God through the Holy Spirit...

Yet Again, it was you who said, "what one believes.. determines salvation.."
Here you try to insinuate that the suggestion of a prerequisite was mine. It was you.
You said, "what one believes.. determines salvation.." I didn't introduce that into this discussion.

It's possible we could agree on this premise, I just found it inconsistent with the Calvinists precepts I've encountered previously. It's inconsistent within your own post. I may or may not agree with you, you haven't clarified "what" someone must believe that determines salvation,,

..well, except you did say:

Whatever God has revealed to them.

Okay, it's whatever.

What does one need to believe that determines salvation? "whatever."
I don't agree with that. I doubt you do either.

You would have to give your definition of penal substitution and why you don't believe it if you don't, before I could begin to answer that question.

If you can't clarify the "what" in your own comment. PSA would be far more tedious an exercise than I would want to pursue.
Perhaps another time in its own thread. This is exhausting and why I rarely post here.

Grace is an act of God is saving grace. But for His grace, no one would be saved, so it is by grace that we are saved, through faith---

Grace is the energies and working of God, and it is by God's work/doing through our faith that we are saved. That's a gift.
If we agree, perhaps this is a good place to end.

 

[Arial]

Nor have you clarified your comment that I inquired about, prior to your question. Unless this counts:

It does qualify. God does not reveal exactly the same things to everyone all the time. What was it He revealed to Peter when Jesus asked him who He (Jesus) is? "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God!" What was Peter thinking when He said that? It no doubt was directly related to the OT prophecy of the Messiah that Peter would have known well. Whatever it was, it was in his heart with some level of understanding. What He revealed to me first was that all the words in the Bible were true. Then I read them and learned. Those who are mentally challenged have much less revealed as they have limited capacity to understand. I have a nephew like that, but His love for Jesus is unmistakable. It is in his heart. You simply seem to have difficulty understanding me, which is often the case when two people are starting from different premises.

Are you saying that TULIP plays no role in reformed soteriology? That would indeed be news to me.

Soteriology:That branch of theology which treats of the salvation of men through Jesus. TULIP does deal with the whys and wherefores of that, but it is not dealing with Christology----who Christ is and what He did. My question to you deals with Christology. Whereas your orignal statement that caused me to ask the question was:

In reading through the numerous writings from reformed believers here and elsewhere, I get the impression that many seem to believe that their understanding of scripture, their use of doctrine, the way they can describe their Calvinism is salvation.

I replied that I failed to see how you got that impression as Calvinism, as well as all of Christianity, teaches that it is what one believes about the person and work of Jesus that determines whether or not one is saved. ANd you asked if that was even scriptural and said it was not Calvinistic. So I asked you if that is not what determines whether a person is saved them what does?

Yet Again, it was you who said, "what one believes.. determines salvation.."
Here you try to insinuate that the suggestion of a prerequisite was mine. It was you.
You said, "what one believes.. determines salvation.." I didn't introduce that into this discussion.

That is not a prerequisite. You left out the crucial part of the sentence. "About the person and work of Jesus." The only way that becomes a prerequisite to salvation is if one believes that it depends on their choosing. Have I not already pointed out with scripture and exposition of scripture that it is not a work of man, it is a work of Jesus (He made it possible), it is by the grace of God, and the faith in the person and work of Jesus is a gift of God through first regeneration and then hearing the gospel. All the prerequisite are provided by God. What do you think Jesus meant when He said no one can see or inherit the kingdom of God unless the Father grants it to him? What do you think He meant when He told His unbelieving audience they did not believe Him because they were not His sheep?

Are those who think Jesus was only a man, a human only prophet, only a teacher, and not a Savior, saved? Are those who say He was not born of virgin or that He was not resurrected from the dead? Are those who say He did not come in the flesh or is not the Son of God or is not both God and man saved? Is what I am saying clear now?

It's possible we could agree on this premise, I just found it inconsistent with the Calvinists precepts I've encountered previously. It's inconsistent within your own post. I may or may not agree with you, you haven't clarified "what" someone must believe that determines salvation,,

Nothing I have said is inconsistent with itself. Nor is it inconsistent with the teachings in Reformed theology. If you think so then you simply have not understood what I am saying and that may be because you are trying to talk about two different subjects at the same time as though they were the same subject. I am making distinctions where there are distinctions and you are not.

What do you think is meant by the person and work of Jesus? It is in a sense a condensing of what constitutes saving faith into who did it. without going into an entire Christology. It is who He is, what He did, why He did it, and how He did it. It is sometimes summed up without its details in the Bible as in the case with Peter. "You are Christ the living Son of God!" Or as "If you confess with your mouth that He is the Son of God and believe in your heart that He was raised from the dead, you will be saved." Surely we should know that the words alone do not save but it must be a condition of the heart that believes the very depth of those words. Though they are seldom taken except at face value and therefore misconstrued. Unitarians say He is the Son of God for instance and have no idea that means He is God come in the flesh.

Okay, it's whatever.

What does one need to believe that determines salvation? "whatever."
I don't agree with that. I doubt you do either.

You can be cryptic and dismissive all you want but you only show you have little comprehension of what you read, and no intention of engaging in an adult and informed manner, or seeking after any understanding of the brothers and sisters you have placed on the other side of your dividing wall. But I explained it for you at the top of this post. "Whatever God reveals to the babe He regenerates" does not mean "Whatever." How disgusting. God never reveals a whatever.

Grace is the energies and working of God, and it is by God's work/doing through our faith that we are saved. That's a gift.
If we agree, perhaps this is a good place to end.

We don't agree. Where do you find support for grace being energies and working of God? Or that it is by God's work/doing through our faith that we are saved? (Who knows what you even mean by that?) Or anything remotely like that in the scriptures? Where oh where did your faith come from? Your whole doctrine here is based on presuppositions you apply to His word, but it is not based on His word.

 

[Arial]

That just because you aren't as intelligent or as well read as me. There's no other reason.

Do you suppose you can find it anywhere in your supposedly "being sanctified" self to speak to others without hubris, ad hominem, arrogance, contempt, and general unkindness? Consider this a warning. Knock the chip off your shoulder.

 

[justbyfaith]

My goal is to understand reformed theology whether I agree with it or not.

Unfortunately, I don't think that you are going to be able to pinpoint reformed theology based on what any single Calvinist might tell you. There is always the next Calvinist who will tell you that what you have been told is a misrepresentation of their thinking.

 

[makesends]

No matter which way you boil it down, you end up with hell being full of tortured sinners to whom God never gave a chance at salvation and Heaven full of redeemed sinners who never had a choice. If you are hard-core Reformed, you believe God created them to be in hell because of Romans 9:22. The whole thing seems a little staged, but what do I know?

The notion of chance is bogus. There is no such thing. If you mean opportunity, they WERE given the choice, and thus they chose.

 

[makesends]

So why does Jesus Christ warn about hell if God already decided who would end up there?

The self-determinist will hear this question answered over and over, and answered in several ways, and will never understand. Man chooses according to what God decrees. You want Man to do part, and God to do part, as though the cumulative result is more than what God has done. You don't see that man chooses within, or under, or AS A RESULT OF, what God has decreed.

At 'the end of all things', when you look at what has been made through all this present activity, you will say, "THIS is what God has done", and every decision made by creatures within it as certainly their own choice.

God warns some people, and even precisely predicts outright, in some cases, what will happen if they choose this as opposed to that. They always choose what he decreed. Yes, he is that much above us, unlike us, and operates on a whole different level from us. He is not a result of causes; we are.

 

[Mr GLee]

So why does Jesus Christ warn about hell if God already decided who would end up there?

Hell is the daily sufferings living in a body of death. They are appointed once die.

The sufferings of hell is made lighter for those yoked with Christ Jesus as it was with Jonah and Jesus the Son of man . . Hell suffering unto death. . . not dead never to rise . The lord does not hear the dead (necromancy)

Jonah 2King James Version2 Then Jonah prayed unto the Lord his God out of the fish's belly, And said, I cried by reason of mine affliction (sufferings) unto the Lord, and he heard me; out of the belly of hell cried I, and thou heardest my voice.

The foundation of the doctrine of hell began in Genesis 4 .

The prophet sent as a apostle, Able the first member of the bride of Christ was murdered by the father of lies, a murderer from that very beginning (John 8:44) who deceitfully worked in a Cain as false prophet. . again sent by the father of lies as a false apostle.

God increased the workload to everyone. Cain said he could not bear it knowing in his hard heart only Christ eternal God could . He hoped for a death wish, as if he was the judge and jury and warned God those who find him will kill . The death penalty the easy way out avoid the increased suffering of hell with no help frpm our Holy Father, the Holy Spirit of truth as it is written .

The Holy Father as Christ revealed as the mark of His word (666) unredeemed mankind (Cain) .

The mark . . .whatsoever he says "let there be" coming to pass "it was good". If they world take matters into thier own hands and they kill Cain. They would neither have the support of the Holy Spirit who makes our daily sufferings lighter with a future hope beyond the grave .They would and also become restless wanderers not yoked with Christ.

Genesis 4: 8-15 And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him. And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother's keeper? (first recorded lie by the father of lies) And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.And now art thou cursed from the earth, which hath opened her mouth to receive thy brother's blood from thy hand; When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength;(Increased the workload ) a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.And Cain (judge and jury) said unto the Lord, My punishment is greater than I can bear. (Blames it on God) Behold, thou hast driven me out this day from the face of the earth; and from thy face shall I be hid; and I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth; and it shall come to pass, that every one that findeth me shall slay me. And the Lord said unto him, Therefore whosoever slayeth Cain, vengeance shall be taken on him sevenfold. And the Lord set a mark (666) upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him.

The slow death suffering hell. 24/7 the first death

 

[Bob Carabbio]

if we take Calvinism to its logical conclusion, one does not even have to ascribe to reformed theology to be saved

Bottom line: "Theological Systematics" are TOTALLY UNIMPORTANT in terms of becoming Born Again. Salvation is predicated on GOD'S WORD TO YOU (Conviction of SIN). And Repentance, and calling on God for salvation in FAITH none of which depends on this or that "Theological system".

You're not even CAPABLE of understanding the Bible, or God's kingdom, before you're indwelled by the Holy Spirit (which is what makes you a Christian).

"Isms" are what "Religious people" confuse themselves with, and how "theologians" earn their paychecks.

 

[Mr GLee]

Moreover, you literally just contradicted yourself in 2 sentences. If God sends people to heaven then He also sends people to hell, but you just said, against Calvinist soteriology and theology, that people send themselves to hell "by their own hand". I know this is tough for you to reconcile, but that is because it is a paradox that causes cognitive dissonance. It's not your fault.

I would ask. What makes some think we are not exercising the pangs of hell living in these dying bodies of death .It is not afterlife we are rescued from but the dailly sufferings. he delivers the living sufferings not the dead Believers given desire to eat the daily bread needed for strength to do the will of the father.

The humbling bread What is it? Not my will. but your will be done Holy Father .

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

Now yoked with Christ the burden can be made lighter. . . . that is if we desire to do his will to the good pleasure of His Holy name . Without him we can do nothing He must increase in us, we must decrease if false pride In that way feed us with the humbling bread of life

 

[makesends]

I would ask. What makes some think we are not exercising the pangs of hell living in these dying bodies of death .It is not afterlife we are rescued from but the dailly sufferings. he delivers the living sufferings not the dead Believers given desire to eat the daily bread needed for strength to do the will of the father.

The humbling bread What is it? Not my will. but your will be done Holy Father .

Deuteronomy 8:3 And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the Lord doth man live.

Now yoked with Christ the burden can be made lighter. . . . that is if we desire to do his will to the good pleasure of His Holy name . Without him we can do nothing He must increase in us, we must decrease if false pride In that way feed us with the humbling bread of life

Are you saying there is no resurrection to condemnation?