Hell

[jriccitelli]

I have consulted several dictionaries, and NONE of them give "judgment" as one of the definitions of "opinion" (Paidion)

Paidion, I cant believe you would pick on what I meant as tongue in cheek, when there are so many other points I made you could address.

Cognate: 1106 gnṓmē (a feminine noun, apparently derived from 1097 /ginṓskō, "experientially, personally know") – a personal opinion or judgment formed in (by) an active relationship, the result of direct ("first-hand") knowledge. (http://biblehub.com/greek/1106.htm )
2. judgement, opinion Job 36:3; חַוֹּת דֵּעִי Job 32:6 to declare my opinion, so Job 32:10; Job 32:17. ( http://biblehub.com/hebrew/1843.htm )
Opinion. 1… probable to ones own mind; what one thinks; judgment. … 3. The formal judgment of an expert on a matter… SYN. – Opinion applies to a conclusion or judgment which… (Webster’s New World Dictionary, 1957)
In general, an opinion is a judgment, viewpoint, or statement about matters commonly considered to be subjective, i.e. based on that which is less than absolutely certain… (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion )

[steve]

When you die you are dead. Unless you have been born again, you are still dead at the judgment.
I saw the dead standing says John. We are dead even now in our sins, unless we repent and believe.
You are calling it temporal death, I believe that in the day that we ate we died, and we remain that way unless we are born again.
When the Prophets say that the wicked and rebellious will perish and be destroyed, they are reflecting on and affirming Genesis 2:17. God also will wipe them away like chaff, they are consumed with fire, just as Sinai revealed and 70ad and Rome demonstrated, symbols which express the awfulness of God’s coming to judgment (Geneva Study Bible), and He is coming 'again'.

What I find difficult in our dialogue is the degree to which you speculate and import meanings into passages based upon your theological presuppositions, rather than exegesis. For example, where did you get the idea that persons are still dead at the judgment? The Bible says that the lost dead "live again" when the time comes for the judgment (Rev.20:5). Jesus and Paul both believed that the wicked dead will be resurrected in the end (John 5:28-29; Acts 24:15). Your arguments are full of extrabiblical (and in this case, unbiblical) speculations.

Q. What do 'you' think His coming will look like for the wicked?

They will be raised to life (John 5:28-29; Rev.20:5) and stand trial before God (Matt.25:31ff; 2 Tim.4:1) before being consigned to the lake of fire (Rev.20:15; Matt.25:41)

Q. If a person dies, how can they be made alive again?

By God. God has said He will raise the dead and bring them to judgment (Heb.9:27). Judgment comes at the end of the world, on the last day (John 12:48).

[Homer]

Something that does not seem to be defined (by each side of the argument) in all the discussion is this:

Exactly what do you think "the second death" means? And is "death" the appropriate word for your answer?

At first glance it seems to be difficult to explain for two of the three views.

[steve]

I think that referring to the lake of fire as "the second death" is the strongest, prima facie, argument for the conditionalist position. All other biblical references to death can (and usually should) be relegated to one of three categories:

1) physical death;
2) spiritual death; or
3) metaphorical death (e.g., "My son was dead, but is now alive")

All of the above make sense in various passages without any reference to postmortem or post-judgment states. The mention of "second death" could refer to a state of separation (as traditionalists and some universalists might suggest), or even to an adverse spiritual condition, but it sounds as if it intends to define a second dying (i.e., in annihilation), similar in subjective experience to the first dying (assuming "soul sleep" to be correct).

This seems to me to be the simplest explanation of the term. Of course, simple explanations are not always the best. The simplest explanation of the "beast" would make it out to be a literal quadruped with seven heads and ten horns. Sometimes other factors must be allowed to qualify or override what seems, at first blush, the simplest meaning of a passage.

[mattrose]

I think the view that I've had about hell for the past few years has been strengthened by my more recent commitment to open theism

My position on hell has been a merger b/w eventual extinction and eventual restoration. It has been my belief (since my thesis) that the fate of the wicked is to cease to exist in hell, but that there may very well be opportunity for the wicked to exit hell.

Open theism, I think, slightly strengthens this view b/c it supplies an extra interpretive option for why there are some strong verses in both the eventual extinction AND eventual restoration camps. There are strong verses in both because both are real possibilities. The Scriptures, therefore, may be PURPOSEFULLY ambiguous in regards to the fate of the wicked.

Nor does it make much sense to venture into dogmatism in regards to how many people might repent post-mortem. Nobody knows.

[jriccitelli]

“… but they will give account to Him who is ready to judge the living and the dead. 6 For the gospel has for this purpose been preached even to those who are dead, that though they are judged in the flesh as men, they may live in the spirit according to the will of God. 7 The end of all things is near; (1Peter 4:5-6)
The dead can hear, and they can respond, but they are still dead. The gospel was preached so that they might 'believe', life is still a condition. This precedence goes back to Genesis 2:17, and continues thru Revelation, it is not simply a presupposition. Nowhere in scripture are the sinners promised or given life. Only the righteous inherit life, you cannot find any verse where life is given to the sinner. Revelation 20:5 is the first resurrection, it is of the saints who were dead, do you really think the dead sinners and wicked are here raised to life??

I might point to the fact that Christ alone was able to overcome death. The general Hebrew belief is that either everyone who dies is dead and remains that way, or that the righteous will live again. That is still true.

The Christian belief is that you must be born again in order to have life. You seem surprised that a Conditional Immortalist would believe that life is conditional. Immortality is ‘life’, and it is a condition. Unless someone is in Christ they are dead and remain so, otherwise Christ was not unique.
“So Jesus said to them, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you have no life in yourselves. 54 "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day…” (John 6:53-54)

Being dead or without a body does not mean you cannot be ‘conscious’, I think we have biblical precedence for that. I have noticed that ‘some’ commentators have historically 'added' that the dead are raised with a body, and I presume this is so because they 'think' a body will be necessary to suffer punishment in hell since most these same commentators profess ET. Although I do not see any precedence for a body, either way, it doesn’t really matter because with or without a body: they are still dead. The wicked are not raised to life, Jesus and the Prophets promised this only to the righteous. The sinner does ‘not’ inherit immortality (or eternal life, which is the same thing) because only the faithful receive eternal life in Christ.

What I find difficult in our dialogue is the degree to which you speculate and import meanings into passages based upon your theological presuppositions, rather than exegesis. (Steve)

Me speculate? You are the one defending UR. If you want to exegete a passage feel free, please do so with the ones you quoted:

They will be raised to life Rev.20:5) and stand trial before God (Matt.25:31ff; 2 Tim.4:1) before being consigned to the lake of fire (Rev.20:15; Matt.25:41) (Steve)

Of course you are free of presuppositions, but where does it say the dead in sin are alive?
John 5:28-29; “Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" You forgot to look at verse 24, there is a condition: those that hear His voice and believe: have passed out of death into life.

(My point about: What do 'you' think His coming will look like for the wicked? Meant what did ‘God’ look like, or what would the scenario of His coming look like? (I.e. tempest, lightning, and fire etc.)

[steve]

JR wrote:

The dead can hear, and they can respond, but they are still dead. The gospel was preached so that they might 'believe', life is still a condition… Being dead or without a body does not mean you cannot be ‘conscious’, I think we have biblical precedence for that.

If this is true, then you have destroyed any argument for those who suffer “the second death” being unconscious or annihilated. Only if the “first death” results in unconsciousness can one argue, by analogy, that the “second death” involves the same. If people who have experienced natural death can still hear and respond, then what argument is left for you to assert that those who have experienced the second death cannot likewise hear and respond? (You needn’t answer this, if you don’t wish to. There is no valid answer available to you. It is a rhetorical question).

Your citation of 1 Peter 4:5-6 is not to your purpose. I am forced to guess at your implied understanding of the text from the nature of the argument you make from it. In any case, it does not advance your case:

First, because it is one of the most obscure statements in the Bible, and is capable of more than one interpretation (yours not being the most likely).

Second, because you seem to think it is talking about the lost in hades being preached to—with the possible result of their coming to life “according to the will of God.” Taken as you seem to see it, this suggests that you were wrong in your bold assertion that “death [is] final,” and seems to acknowledge that people having experienced the first death may yet repent in hades. If this is true, what argument can possibly be advanced against the same possibility existing after the “second death”?

If your argument from 1 Peter 4 is otherwise, then you have not made that clear enough to render it an intelligible argument.

Nowhere in scripture are the sinners promised or given life. Only the righteous inherit life, you cannot find any verse where life is given to the sinner.

No need to. Every breathing human being—sinner or saint—obviously has life. This is the gift of God to every living being, including animals (e.g., Gen.1:30; 9:4; Lev.17:14; Job 12:10; Prov.12:10; Acts 17:25; 1 Tim.6:13). This is not necessarily immortality, but no one is arguing here that it is. I have not suggested that the lost are granted unconditional immortality. For them to be brought to life and to judgment (which the Bible describes) does not presuppose immortality for them.

After all, how can they experience a "second" death, if they have not "come to life" again from the first death? If they remain perpetually dead, as a result of their first death, then there can be no second death for them. Dead people do not die. Only living people do.

I have provided scriptural references (John 5:28-29; cf., Acts 24:15) to all the dead coming out of the graves. You ask me to exegete this? “The hour is coming”—apparently, on the “last day” (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48)—when “all who are in the graves” will be raised. “All” means the believers and the unbelievers alike, since some go to eternal life and some to eternal condemnation. “Graves” are places where dead bodies are interred. “All who are in the graves” refers to bodies in the graves (to my knowledge, nothing but bodies are in graves). Am I leaving anything out?

Okay, your turn. You exegete that passage (or any other, for that matter).

Revelation 20:5 is the first resurrection, it is of the saints who were dead, do you really think the dead sinners and wicked are here raised to life??

Why not? Those in the first resurrection are the saints. Those in the second resurrection ("the rest of the dead”), by definition, must be someone else. If not the lost, then who?

I might point to the fact that Christ alone was able to overcome death. The general Hebrew belief is that either everyone who dies is dead and remains that way, or that the righteous will live again. That is still true.

Paul seemed to think that the Pharisees held the same belief on this that he held—namely, that the good and the bad are both to be raised:

"I have hope in God, which they themselves [the Jews] also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust." (Acts 24:15).

From all I have read, there were a number of mutually contradictory beliefs held among the Jews. From whence do you learn what was “the general Hebrew belief?” The chief priests [Sadducees] did not believe in any resurrection or immortality at all. I know of nothing in the Old Testament that would support the notion of only the righteous resurrecting to judgment. Do you not apply Daniel 12:2 to the resurrection?

"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake,
Some to everlasting life,
Some to shame and everlasting contempt.”

It may not matter to you, but your beliefs about this matter are highly unorthodox. While that in itself does not make them false, it does render it disingenuous for you to label any view opposed to your own as “unorthodox.”

If I were a defender of conditional immortality, I would want someone more mainstream in his biblical interpretations to be here defending that view.

The Christian belief is that you must be born again in order to have life. You seem surprised that a Conditional Immortalist would believe that life is conditional.

It does not surprise me at all. In fact, I am well aware of it. What does surprise me is that anyone would be so dismissive of scripture as to equate “life” with “immortality” in its regular scriptural usage.

Immortality is ‘life’, and it is a condition. Unless someone is in Christ they are dead and remain so, otherwise Christ was not unique.

I think it is you that are “unique.” I know of no one else who would insist that all references to “life” must mean “immortality.” I am willing to admit that immortality is conditional, and is not the possession of unbelievers. However, it seems absurd to try to argue that unbelievers do not possess “life” in the ordinary sense of the word. It is only if you insist that life must only mean immortality that any part of your objection to the resurrection of the lost can be maintained.

I have noticed that ‘some’ commentators have historically 'added' that the dead are raised with a body, and I presume this is so because they 'think' a body will be necessary to suffer punishment in hell since most these same commentators profess ET. Although I do not see any precedence for a body, either way, it doesn’t really matter because with or without a body: they are still dead. The wicked are not raised to life, Jesus and the Prophets promised this only to the righteous. The sinner does ‘not’ inherit immortality (or eternal life, which is the same thing) because only the faithful receive eternal life in Christ.

This is so arbitrary, and so lacking in biblical warrant on any level, that it needs no rebuttal.

By the way, I have never encountered a commentator who did not think the lost will be resurrected in bodies. Again, I care little what the commentators may or may not say, but you have often based your criticism of restorationism on your assertion that the commentators reject it. Well, they clearly reject your view as well.

Me speculate? You are the one defending UR.

I have done nothing to defend UR except to point out that your objections to it are based entirely on your extrabiblical presuppositions—namely, that there can be no repentance after death. I have presupposed nothing. I do not presuppose that there is repentance after death. I am only unwilling to rule out the possibility without biblical warrant. This is not presupposition on my part, but the refusal to engage in such.

In this latest post, you have now raised questions about whether you even believe postmortem repentance is out of the question. You have said that the dead are conscious, can hear and can respond. You cited a passage that seems to say (according to your apparent interpretation) that the gospel was preached to the dead allowing them to respond and come to life in the spirit. If this isn’t postmortem faith, then I can not fathom what it is you are arguing from it.

My point about: What do 'you' think His coming will look like for the wicked? Meant what did ‘God’ look like, or what would the scenario of His coming look like? (I.e. tempest, lightning, and fire etc.)

Who cares? We do not know, and knowing this would have no impact on the points we are discussing.

[jriccitelli]

If this is true, then you have destroyed any argument for those who suffer “the second death” being unconscious or annihilated… (Steve)

I never suggested I believe the dead were 'unconscious' (I am not a JW, or such)? I do not believe those post-second death were ever unconscious. I have also been arguing that they are 'consciously' punished and ‘then’ annihilated.

… If people who have experienced natural death can still hear and respond, then what argument is left for you to assert that those who have experienced the second death cannot likewise hear and respond? (Steve)

I, and thousands of others have ‘already’ made the argument that after the last Judgment is finished, there are no further decisions. God seals His decision, it is The Judgment, and it is the last Judgment.
God does not need any further evidence, He can judge the heart and mind without waiting:
“I, the LORD, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways’ (Jer. 17:10)
“Therefore do not go on passing judgment before the time, but wait until the Lord comes who will both bring to light the things hidden in the darkness and disclose the motives of men’s hearts; and then each man’s praise will come to him from God” (1 Cor.4)

“Your citation of 1 Peter 4:5-6 is not to your purpose. I am forced to guess at your implied understanding of the text from the nature of the argument you make from it. In any case, it does not advance your case... (Steve)

Although Catholics have fully supported this interpretation, and so did some of the major reformers I.E. Calvin etc. Believe me I don’t need the 1Peter post-mortem/purgatory/second chance scenario to support anything I profess.

First, because it is one of the most obscure statements in the Bible, and is capable of more than one interpretation (yours not being the most likely) (Steve)

The following is from Ellicott's Commentary:

The second interpretation—which is that of (practically) all the Fathers, and of Calvin, Luther (finally), Bellarmine, Bengel, and of most modern scholars—refers the passage to what our Lord did while His body was dead. This is the most natural construction to put upon the words “in which also”… (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_peter/3-19.htm )

But, if you don’t want to enter this interpretation of the verse, fine, although I consider these comments by Peter as the lone possibility to a post-mortem saving/preaching scenario, we will skip over it if you insist. Still your argument about the verse, that death is final, is not the point I was making with this verse. You are still missing what I mean by death is final; the first death is the loss of the body and the second is the death and destruction of the spirit/soul/person. After the first death we are a disembodied soul, after the second death there is nothing at all left, it is final, the destruction of the soul. If you do not repent, even life is final.

“Taken as you seem to see it, this suggests that you were wrong in your bold assertion that “death [is] final,” and seems to acknowledge that people having experienced the first death may yet repent in hades… (Steve)

(first of all, I have not objected to repentance prior to the Judgment, only after)
Taken as you seem to see it, you are thinking of death in a physical sense. None of us have any knowledge of the after life except for what scripture is telling us, and so I have to go solely on how scripture ‘defines’ death and life. Death is a judgment. We are not released from this judgment simply by dying or being resurrected before the final judgment. If we have not been forgiven by God we are still dead in our sins (i.e. dead man walking)

[jriccitelli]

“After all, how can they experience a "second" death, if they have not "come to life" again from the first death? If they remain perpetually dead, as a result of their first death, then there can be no second death for them. Dead people do not die. Only living people do” (Steve)

Again, Death is a judgment: If God has not forgiven us; we are still dead in our sins.
Mortally alive, but morally dead. Maybe even spiritually alive, but morally dead.
I have been defining the dead in theological and scriptural terms (we are spiritually dead, and remain so until we actually present a sacrifice according to Gods Holiness):
“Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire” (20:11-15)
At this, the general resurrection, John does not refer to the dead as alive. In fact he purposely contrasts the dead with the book of life. More dead are spoken of as being raised, and nothing points to them having life. Probably because this is the Judgment, their being dead affirms their guilt.

I have provided scriptural references (John 5:28-29; cf., Acts 24:15) to all the dead coming out of the graves. You ask me to exegete this? “The hour is coming”—apparently, on the “last day” (John 6:39, 40, 44, 54; 12:48)—when “all who are in the graves” will be raised. “All” means the believers and the unbelievers alike, since some go to eternal life and some to eternal condemnation. “Graves” are places where dead bodies are interred. “All who are in the graves” refers to bodies in the graves (to my knowledge, nothing but bodies are in graves). Am I leaving anything out? (Steve)

(First of all I do not think many are still in actual graves, and further I think it is already understood that the dead are 'actually' in Hades/Paradise/Sheol. If you want to hold to an actual body being necessary, it doesn't really matter to what I am saying: they are dead, with or without a body). My point is still that all sinners are condemned to death, just as all the OT prophets describe, warn of, point out and promise, this does not change just because the sinners are standing at the last judgment.
So on to your verses;
"Do not marvel at this; for an hour is coming, in which all who are in the tombs will hear His voice, 29 and will come forth; those who did the good deeds to a resurrection of life, those who committed the evil deeds to a resurrection of judgment… (John 5:28-29)
John makes a clear distinction between ‘a resurrection of life’ and ‘a resurrection of judgment’. John seems to purposefully not include life in the second clause. Nevertheless I am still holding to the precedence that all people are under the condemnation of death until they are forgiven, I am sure John knew this, thus his aversion to calling the dead sinners 'alive' at the resurrection. All are raised, but ‘resurrection’ does not imply the sinner has life anymore than he did before he died, and more to the point: they are still dead in sins, thus the original curse and condemnation is still in effect: the sinner will perish and be destroyed.

“… there shall certainly be a resurrection of both the righteous and the wicked” (Acts 24:15)
Again Paul does not refer to the dead wicked coming to 'life', rather he only states they will be resurrected.

Christ did not resurrect just so there could be a resurrection of unbelievers and a final judgment (this was going to happen anyways), His resurrection was the resurrection of the righteous, and He was raised to incorruptible new life.
"This is the will of Him who sent Me, that of all that He has given Me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day. 40 "For this is the will of My Father, that everyone who beholds the Son and believes in Him will have eternal life, and I Myself will raise him up on the last day" (John 6:39-40)
Only those who believe in Him will have eternal life, these are the only ones implied here as being raised up. Others may be raised up, but only those who are His are subjects of this passage.
“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (6:44) Again, only those drawn by the Father are raised up here.
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (6:54)
Again, only those who drink his blood are spoken of being raised up.
“If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day’ (John 12:47-48)
Again, those who heard His voice are under judgment here, because they did not believe, as it says in John 5:24:
“Truly, truly, I say to you, he who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life" Notice that believers will not have to be at that judgment.

[steve]

JR wrote:

I, and thousands of others have ‘already’ made the argument that after the last Judgment is finished, there are no further decisions.

Yes, I think I remember you making that assertion (though I don’t recall the thousands of others who joined the chorus). But asserting something is not “making [an] argument.” This is what is so weak in your presentations. You think you are making arguments, when, in fact, you are only making assertions.

The difference is this:

a) An assertion affirms something to be so;

b) An argument demonstrates that the thing is so.

You do a great deal of the former. You don’t even seem to attempt the latter. I would find the latter more compelling.

The following is from Ellicott's Commentary:
The second interpretation—which is that of (practically) all the Fathers, and of Calvin, Luther (finally), Bellarmine, Bengel, and of most modern scholars—refers the passage to what our Lord did while His body was dead. This is the most natural construction to put upon the words “in which also”… (http://biblehub.com/commentaries/1_peter/3-19.htm )

It is strange that you quote Ellicott in this manner, for two reasons:

a) You are trying to convince me of a point, yet I have already told you that commentaries do not convince me (unless, of course, they provide scriptural evidence, which Ellicott does not, in this paragraph); and

b) The commentary you cite is on 1 Peter 3:19, whereas we are discussing an entirely different passage. Don’t you recall? You are the one who cited the passage (1 Peter 4:6) in the first place. Why not quote commentaries (if you must) on the passage under consideration?

You are still missing what I mean by death is final; the first death is the loss of the body and the second is the death and destruction of the spirit/soul/person. After the first death we are a disembodied soul, after the second death there is nothing at all left, it is final…

Yes. I think I knew that this was your opinion. Yet, it is an assertion merely. If you want to obligate me to agree with you, you should provide some kind of exegetical argument to convince a skeptical fellow like me that you know anything about what you are affirming.

None of us have any knowledge of the after life except for what scripture is telling us, and so I have to go solely on how scripture ‘defines’ death and life.

Two responses:

a) You have not demonstrated that your definitions of “death” are those provided by any scriptural passage (i.e., that the second death is annihilation, or that the wicked are raised, but still in a state of being dead). Your assertions on these points are not presented alongside any confirming testimony of scripture;

b) If “None of us have any knowledge of the after life except for what scripture is telling us…” then why do you pretend to know that there can be no repentance in hell (since this is not one of the things that scripture tells us about the afterlife)?

Mortally alive, but morally dead. Maybe even spiritually alive, but morally dead.
I have been defining the dead in theological and scriptural terms…

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, but since you are saying that these are the theological and scriptural uses of the terms, could you provide something from scripture that might make this more clear?

At this, the general resurrection, John does not refer to the dead as alive. In fact he purposely contrasts the dead with the book of life…John makes a clear distinction between ‘a resurrection of life’ and ‘a resurrection of judgment’. John seems to purposefully not include life in the second clause.

In John’s books, more often than not, “life” is shorthand for “aionios life.” The “Book of Life” is also a figure for inclusion in this life. It is true that the second death is for those who miss out on “aionios life,” but this doesn’t mean they are not “alive” as they stand before the judgment seat of Christ.

More dead are spoken of as being raised, and nothing points to them having life.

Sheer agenda-driven nonsense. Being raised from the dead implies being brought to life, by definition.

Again Paul does not refer to the dead wicked coming to 'life', rather he only states they will be resurrected.

Maybe you can give me an authoritative definition of “resurrection.” Wikipedia defines the word as follows: “Resurrection (anglicized from Latin resurrection ) is the concept of a living being coming back to life after death.” I have never encountered a definition different from this. From whence do you derive yours?

“No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up on the last day” (6:44) Again, only those drawn by the Father are raised up here.
“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day” (6:54)
Again, only those who drink his blood are spoken of being raised up.
“If anyone hears My sayings and does not keep them, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world, but to save the world. “He who rejects Me and does not receive My sayings, has one who judges him; the word I spoke is what will judge him at the last day’ (John 12:47-48)
Again, only those who hear His voice will He raise up in this passage.

There is no question that these verses tell us only about the saved being raised, and do not mention the lost being raised. However, you don’t object to the fact that all the dead will be “raised” (you just think some of them will be raised dead), so are you now trying to prove otherwise?

To cite scriptures about the resurrection of the righteous does not contribute to our discussion about the resurrection of the lost (which is mentioned in other passages). It is as if you would cite Galatians 2:20 ("...the Son of God, who loved me and gave Himself for me") as proof that Jesus loved and died for no one else but Paul (after all, he doesn't mention anyone else here).

Since you have no arguments to present (God knows you have had plenty of posts in which to demonstrate otherwise, if you could!), why not just give this topic a rest? I, in any case, will not have time to waste reading anything more from you on this topic. You have not demonstrated sufficient integrity in the handling of the sacred texts to be worth any further investment of my time.