Even JW spin is answering Bible questions "honestly." It's all interpretation.
Can You Answer These 16 Bible Questions Honestly?
by The Searcher 63 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
Scully
You want honest answers to those 16 questions?
Here goes: 1-16... I don't care. Honestly.
thx buhbye
-
GOrwell
@ DJ
" 6. that our own death wipes out our sins?
Romans 6:7 indicates that by our own death, we are "acquitted" of our sins."
Pure hogwash. The context of Romans 6:1-14 clearly indicates the aquittal of sins occurs when you are spritually born-again, but I doubt any JW has actually read Romans, let alone are truly born-again.
Romans 6:1-14.
"What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.
For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.
Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal body, to make you obey its passions. Do not present your members to sin as instruments for unrighteousness, but present yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life, and your members to God as instruments for righteousness. For sin will have no dominion over you, since you are not under law but under grace."Furthermore, Jesus refutes your idea at John 5:28, 29, a favourite JW prooftext :
" Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."
Obviously, if your sins are acquitted immediately upon your physical death, you wouldn't face a resurrection of judgement, now could you?
Yet another to disprove this false JW idea is Hebrews 9:27, 28 :
"And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."
-
blindnomore
2.The context of John 10:16 reads:' "And I have other sheep, which are not of this fold; those also I must bring, and they will become one flock,one shepherd.' Compare it with Ephesians 3:6 which reads:' that people of the nations should be joint heirs and fellow members of the body and partakers with us of the promise in union with Christ Jesus through the good news.'
At John 10:16, Jesus was speaking to his Jewish listners(who are in this fold) that there are also others who are not in this fold(non-jews) that he must bring and they(both jews and non jews, that is gentiles)will become one flock.
Interestingly, Ephesians 3:6 renders that 'people of the nations(gentiles) should be joint heirs and fellow members of the body[therefore become one flock] and partakers ......in union with Christ..
Even more interestingly, last week Watchtower Study article( w1/15, 2012, study during week of March 26-April 1, ph 13 on page 29) explains,
'Those invited to be in the new covenant were alsoto be anointed with holy spirit.(2 Cor. 1:21) Faithful Jewsand then, Gentiles were included.(Eph. 3:5,6).(bold and underline mine)[ironically the WT contracditing itself unwittingly, I believe this same study article will provide at least half of your questions. But make sure read cited scriptures and their context. I love it when the WT studied for you and only to support opponants' points. The WT study articles, to me, have proved to be the best source of discrediting its own doctrins]
Now we can easily draw the answers of the First and Second questions,
1. who the 'other sheep' are: Gentiles
2.the context of John 10:16: the blessings of the Christ' good news will be extended to ' people of the nations(gentiles).' No where these scriptures are pointing 2 different callings, namly, one, havenly and the other, earthly. It's only happening if someone decideds to interprit it to fit his/hers own understanding.
-
djeggnog
@djeggnog wrote:
You quoted Mark 3:33-35 to suggest that one that merely does God's will becomes one of Christ's brothers, which isn't true at all, so who really is the one lying here?
@N.drew wrote:
I don't know who's lying. It seems that according to YOU who is lying is either 1. Jesus or 2. whoever wrote Mark 3:35
Actually, you quoted Mark 3:33-35 to suggest something that the text doesn't say at all. Let me be clear: It wasn't that Jesus lied or that Mark lied, but you that lied here. I don't think you lie was deliberate, but your reading of Mark 3:33-35 is erroneous, or perhaps you can explain to me why it was you selectively decided to infer yourself to be one of Christ's brothers, when, at Mark 3:35, Jesus says that those doing God's will would be his "brother and sister and mother." Are you also Jesus' "sister"? his mother"? If not why not since you have claimed to be his "brother"? There is something called context that you failed to take into consideration when you dared to quote Mark 3:33-35.
For example, at Acts 23:6, the Christian apostle Paul is quoted there as declaring, "I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Over the hope of resurrection of the dead I am being judged." Since Paul was a Christian, would you conclude that Paul lied when he indicated in this verse that he was a Pharisee? The way you interpreted Mark 3:33-35, @N.drew, it is clear to me that you would likely answer this question with a "yes," because you seem to lack the ability to comprehend some of the things you read in the Bible and discernment probably isn't your forté either. No big deal.
That is why there are elders in the congregation to help the flock understand those things that might be a bit difficult for them to comprehend without the help from spiritually-qualified men, and even though you didn't ask me to explain all of this to you, I'm doing so anyway to save you from saying things that make you come off to those of us that know what scriptures like this one mean both ignorant and totally clueless. The reason discernment is necessary to comprehend what it was Paul meant by declaring himself to be a Pharisee when he was in reality a Christian is because what needs to be understood is the context in which Paul spoke these words. The verse at Acts 23:6 reads this way:
Now when Paul took note that the one part was of Sadducees but the other of Pharisees, he proceeded to cry out in the Sanhedrin: "Men, brothers, I am a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees. Over the hope of resurrection of the dead I am being judged."
You see, @N.drew, there were two religious factions present on this occasion -- the Pharisees, who believed in the resurrection, and the Sadducees, who did not believe in the resurrection. Paul wasn't saying that he wasn't a Christian, but what he was saying, in context, is that when he came to the hope of the resurrection, his beliefs about the resurrection were in common with the Pharisees, who also believed in the resurrection.
So did Paul lie at Acts 23:6 when he said that he was "a Pharisee, a son of Pharisees"? No, because not only was he the son of a Pharisee (Philippians 3:5), and he believed in the resurrection just as did the Pharisees. Paul wanted to shake things up between these two sects and he knew that mention of a doctrine with which the Sadducees vociferously disagreed would shake things up as Acts 23:9 states, some of the Pharisee scribes began contending with the Sadducees and saying how they found "nothing wrong" with Paul.
Another example I could cite here, @N.drew, is how some Christians today will cite the verse at John 5:18 and concludes that it proves that Jesus is God, when it does nothing of the kind. This verse reads this way:
On this account, indeed, the Jews began seeking all the more to kill him, because not only was he breaking the Sabbath but he was also calling God his own Father, making himself equal to God.
Reading comprehension is a big problems among Jehovah's Witnesses today, but this problem didn't begin when they became Jehovah's Witnesses, for many were functional illiterates or had not completed high school and so because they had not really had a formal education, they would guess at the meaning of certain Bible passages and would assume if no one had ever called them on any of what they speculated would conclude that they had guessed correctly. Consequently, many Jehovah's Witnesses that had acquired some knowledge of the Bible in one of Christendom's churches would read something more into John 5:18 than this verse actually say.
This verse has been used to "prove" that Jesus is God, for many have made their focus the words, "making himself equal to God" as if they meant "which proves that Jesus is equal to God" when this is not what this verse says at all. Maybe when you read this verse, even you believe that this verse to mean that Jesus is "equal to God," I don't know what you believe, but this is not what the apostle John is saying at John 5:18 at all.
In this verse, the apostle makes a parenthetical statement as to how the Jews reasoned with respect to Jesus' claim to be "the Son of God." They had concluded that by Jesus declaring God to be his own father, that he was essentially making himself God in the sense of someone having the last name of "Eric Gates" that claims Bill Gates to be his father might be accorded more attention and high regard from all of the women in his life that he dates because of their believing themselves to be dating the son of a multi-billionaire.
Just as none of these women were of the belief that they were dating Bill Gates, they do believe this Eric Gates to be the heir of a multi-billionaire. Likewise none of the Jews were of the belief that Jesus was God either, because Jesus never claimed to be God, but they objected to Jesus' claim to be "the Son of God," for they comprehended Jesus to be a man just as they were, a man that claimed to be God's son, that is to say, an elitist that had claimed to be a member of God's household, who had a higher station than they did. Thus, what John was saying at John 5:18 is that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because they thought his claim that God was his father to have been akin to blasphemy and elitist.
So according to what I understand the Governing Body [to] teach, which is listen to them or die, they do teach that they alone are doing God's will.
No, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses has never taught that you or anyone else should listen to them or die; you made this up, because nowhere in any of the Society's literature that you have ever read have you read anything to this effect in the form of such an ultimatum. You don't have to listen to the Governing Body or to the things taught by any of Jehovah's Witnesses; no one does. Perhaps you recall reading in the Bible at 2 Corinthians 1:24 that 'we are not masters over anyone's faith.' We're not! Jehovah's Witnesses do teach and encourage others to do God's will, but we are not given any authority by God or Christ to force anyone to do anything that they do not choose to do.
But I'm intrigued by the stupidness of this claim, @N.drew, that you understand the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses to teach or to have taught that all must "listen to them or die." Where did you come upon such nonsense? If you did read it somewhere, where did you read it? Who was it that intimated to you that if anyone refuses to listen to the Governing Body, then they are going to die?
Personally, @N.drew, I think you're lying. Personally, I think you're making all of this up. Personally, I believe you know good and well that you didn't hear such a thing read in any letter that was sent out to the congregations of Jehovah's Witnesses from the Governing Body, that you didn't read any such thing in any of the Society's literature, that you have here repeated something that you read here in a message here on JWN or elsewhere or may have heard someone say, but that you cannot prove this statement to be true.
Or is it OK for me to understand the scriptures differently than what they teach today?
Yes, you are free to read the Scriptures and interpret them differently than do Jehovah's Witnesses, if you don't care about being wrong or drawing the wrong conclusions from the things you read in the Bible. Most people does want to guess about the things that are important to them. They want to know what's up, that want to know what's true and what isn't true so that they can make appropriate decisions.
Imagine that you thought you had agreed to pay a $1,500/month mortgage for 96 months (eight years of mortgage payments) when suddenly you learn that you now have to figure out how to pay a $3,200/month mortgage when you had only planned on paying $1,500/month and have no idea where you are going to find an additional $1,700/month for the 264 months left in your 360-month (30-year) mortgage when your job doesn't pay you enough to pay $3,200/month. Would you agree to make mortgage payments on mortgage that you knew was going to increase after eight months, but you didn't know by how much the payments would increase? Hardly anyone in their right mind would do this, because they would want to know the truth about their mortgage right up front.
If you want to know the truths found in the Bible, then I believe Jehovah's Witnesses have it and are willing to share that truth with you, and explain it, but no one can learn Bible truth on their own. One needs a preacher to help them to understand the truth. Romans 10:14 says, "How, in turn, will they hear without someone to preach?"
When a Jewish proselyte, an Ethiopian eunuch, was having difficulty understanding what he was reading at Isaiah chapter 53, at Acts 8:30, 31, we learn that after Philip asked the man, "Do you actually know what you are reading?" that the man replied, "Really, how could I ever do so, unless someone guided me?" so that Philip went on to sit down with the man to discuss the meaning of Isaiah 53, and as we read at Acts 8:35, "starting with this Scripture," he went on to declare to him this proselyte "the good news about Jesus." You do not have to believe me (and you probably won't believe me), but as the Bible makes crystal clear, it is a fact that no one will not be able to learn the truths found in the Bible without the help of a preacher that is "qualified to teach" them. (2 Timothy 2:24)
Now I've read many of the messages that you've posted here on JWN and I'm absolutely certain that you have no real idea what the truth is; that what you have is bits and pieces of the truth, but that you are confused about many things because you don't understand them, which is why you answered one of the OP's questions in the way you did in identifying who Christ's brothers are today. You believe, that "whoever does the will of God" are Christ's brothers, which isn't just wrong, but it tells me that you are guessing and they you really don't know the truth as to whom Christ's brothers are.
Well, I did provide an answer to the OP's question #3 in a previous post, and I know by now that you've had an opportunity to read my response to that question, but that you no doubt think that you're right and that I'm wrong, and while I am prone to making a lot of typos, listen up: I'm imperfect, but I'm hardly wrong about what things the Bible teaches. Hardly! I know that I am attacked by some apostates here on JWN no matter what it is I might write on here -- and @cantleave, for example, who may or might be an apostate, will typically join many of the threads that I have joined on here just to call me an "idiot" even though he knows his doing this to be in violation of one of the forum guidelines (maybe he's gay and he's trying to tell me that he thinks he loves me) -- but I also know that there are other folks on here that are not apostates and that know me to be more knowledgeable about the beliefs of Jehovah's Witnesses than anyone that they have ever met (in cyberspace).
Some of these folks are lurkers, but all of these know that my beliefs are progressively consistent with what things they learned as Jehovah's Witnesses or learned when they were once Jehovah's Witnesses (e.g., our latest interpretation of "this generation" at Matthew 24:34) as if what I say was cut and pasted from our literature. I actually don't have any need to cut and paste anyone else's words because I know intimately what things the Bible teaches and thus have no need to use a Bible study aid, as do some, in order to help me remember what things I've already learned.
I am reminded of the Pharisees that were searching the Scriptures, @N.drew, because they, like you, thought that they would gain everlasting life by means of them, but they didn't understand nor did they appreciate the significance of what things they had read in the Bible -- they did a lot of guessing -- and as a result they didn't come to Jesus that they might gain life. (John 5:39, 40)
I expect you to be offended by this response even though I didn't post it to cause you any offense, @N.drew, but I'll just say that the things I say here I am saying with a confidence that I know you don't have, because you are one of those "always learning and yet never able to come to an accurate knowledge of truth." (2 Timothy 3:7) The confidence that I have though is due to my having learned the truth, which has set me free from the many religious falsehoods that men teach, and is what prevents me from being susceptible to "every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in contriving error" as you and many like you are. (John 8:32; Ephesians 4:14).
@djeggnog
-
sabastious
At Acts 15:2, we learn that Paul and Barnabas and some others went "up to the apostles and older men in Jerusalem regarding this dispute" that had arisen over whether it was necessary to circumcise Gentile Christians, so it would appear that this group of men formed a governing body to settle the circumcision issue.
This dispute was identified by contention among the newly converted. The Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses do not listen to their people in the way Paul and Barnabas did in Acts 15. Yes, they believe they do carry out similar duites, but it's merely a delusion much like RCC pope. For one, Paul and Barnabas didn't have 7.5 million people to deal with so it's not feasible to call them the Governing Body of Acts 15. It would better to call local elders that, if you were going to identify a modern group, rather than the GB who do a piss poor job as Apostles. So much blood is on their hands. They are the "Sodemn and Egypt" of Revelation.
Instead of solving the matters at hand (which takes hard work) they merely excommunicate people who are involved in contention. A lazy way of doing things that switfly identifies them as "workers of lawlessness."
-Sab
-
sizemik
Interesting that you should mention Acts 15:2 sab . . . especially appropriate following Eggy's little lecture on "context"
It's the complete ignorance of context in Acts 15, which gives rise to the Jehovah's Witnesses death-dealing, mis-guided and unscriptural blood doctrine. Context is an undeniable problem in defending the doctrine . . . which Eggy carefully avoids for that reason.
Before labelling those that disagree or have a different take "liars" Eggy . . . I would suggest a more comprehensive understanding of the word itself, followed by a review of your own previous contradictory claims, before you decide which way the wind is blowing.
-
djeggnog
@The Searcher wrote:
6. that our own death wipes out our sins?
@djeggnog wrote:
Romans 6:7 indicates that by our own death, we are "acquitted" of our sins
@GOrwell wrote:
Pure hogwash. The context of Romans 6:1-14 clearly indicates the [acquittal] of sins occurs when you are [spiritually] born-again, but I doubt any JW has actually read Romans, let alone are truly born-again.
Ok.
Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. [Romans 6:8]
If you know, what kind of death is this of which the apostle speaks here? Is this "death" to which Paul refers a literal death or a figurative death? When I mentioned Romans 6:7 to make the point, in response to the OP's question #6, that "we are 'acquitted' of our sins" when we die, what kind of death did you understand the OP to mean? A literal death or a figurative death? I understood the OP's question to be about whether our own literal death "wipes out our sins," so I wasn't referring to a figurative death, since Paul was not referring to a figurative death at Romans 6:7 either.
But here in the very next verse, at Romans 6:8 (quoted above), Paul is talking about one that dies in a figurative way toward Christ, so that one, in effect, dies "with Christ," for the hope of those that die "with Christ" is that they "will also live with him" when they have literally died and received a resurrection. But ok.
Furthermore, Jesus refutes your idea at John 5:28, 29, a favourite JW prooftext :
"Do not marvel at this, for an hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who have done good to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil to the resurrection of judgment."
Obviously, if your sins are acquitted immediately upon your physical death, you wouldn't face a resurrection of judgement, now could you?
Why not? Being acquitted of one's sins by one's death doesn't mean that the one that has been so acquitted will not come out from the tombs at their resurrection to be given opportunity to make their resurrection one of life instead of one of condemnatory judgment, the "second death" (Revelation 20:14). Being acquitted of your sins means that the debt you owe to God as a descendant of Adam has been satisfied by your death, thus wiping out your debt. I might illustrate what Jesus is saying at John 5:28, 29, as follows:
Bankruptcy courts do much the same thing in wiping out the debt owed by a debtor, but as far as your credit is concerned, that's gone. You cannot buy a home, you cannot buy a new car on credit, you have no credit cards, so, in effect, as far as your credit is concerned after a bankruptcy, so in this sense, you're dead. What John 5:28, 29, is saying is that your credit will be restored to you, so that you will again be able to buy a home, buy a new car on credit and obtain approvals for new credit cards. This is by virtue of the resurrection, because unless you receive a resurrection, there will be no way to know how you are going to fare after your credit has been restored. Understand?
Now some of the ones resurrected will do well so that their resurrection will turn out to be one to life, they having taken the second chance that they were given to handle their credit responsibly such that, at the end of the thousand year reign of Christ Jesus, God will have declared these "righteous for life," but there will some whose resurrection will turn out to be to judgment because they not having taken this second chance to handle their credit responsibly, they will have lost their credit standing forever for when the thousand years have ended, God will not have declared these "righteous for life." (Romans 5:18)
I'm not really talking about anyone's credit standing at all, but I am simply illustrating what happens if one receive a resurrection, for those whose resurrection turns out to be a resurrection of judgment will be hurled into the lake of fire, which means the second death. You don't seem to appreciate that there are other scriptures that have a bearing on your understanding of what Jesus states at John 5:28, 29, but this illustration is what this passage means. Of course, this is just my opinion, but you are entitled to believe what you wish.
Yet another to disprove this false JW idea is Hebrews 9:27, 28 :
"And just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment, so Christ, having been offered once to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, not to deal with sin but to save those who are eagerly waiting for him."
What "false JW idea"? I don't follow you and I've no interest in guessing what it is you meant by this.
@blindnomore:
At John 10:16, Jesus was speaking to his Jewish [listeners] (who are in this fold) that there are also others who are not in this fold(non-jews) that he must bring and they(both jews and non jews, that is gentiles)will become one flock.
You sound like a Catholic or like you used to be a Catholic. What you say here is really a common misunderstanding of Jesus' words at John 10:16.
1. who the 'other sheep' are: Gentiles
Ok
2.the context of John 10:16: the blessings of the Christ' good news will be extended to ' people of the nations(gentiles).' [Nowhere] these scriptures are pointing 2 different callings, [namely], one, [heavenly] and the other, earthly. It's only happening if someone [decides] to [interpret] it to fit his/hers own understanding.
I understand the point you're making, but is it not possible that you have done what you would accuse Jehovah's Witnesses of doing, interpreting the text of John 10:16 to fit your own understanding?
Anyway, the OP asked that the 16 questions asked be answered "[u]sing only the Bible," which I have done, so it would be up to the OP to decide whether your answers to these two questions are acceptable. You are not going to be able to convince me that you know what you are talking about, because, in my opinion, you don't, but maybe the OP will be convinced otherwise.
@djeggnog
-
-
djeggnog
@GOrwell wrote:
Pure hogwash. The context of Romans 6:1-14 clearly indicates the [acquittal] of sins occurs when you are [spiritually] born-again, but I doubt any JW has actually read Romans, let alone are truly born-again.
@djeggnog wrote:
Ok.
@GOrwell wrote:
Obviously, if your sins are acquitted immediately upon your physical death, you wouldn't face a resurrection of judgement, now could you?
@djeggnog wrote:
Why not? Being acquitted of one's sins by one's death doesn't mean that the one that has been so acquitted will not come out from the tombs at their resurrection to be given opportunity to make their resurrection one of life instead of one of condemnatory judgment, the "second death" (Revelation 20:14). Being acquitted of your sins means that the debt you owe to God as a descendant of Adam has been satisfied by your death, thus wiping out your debt.
I thought I would provide some information here to help those of you that aren't clear on what an acquittal is, since there are many of you I'm sure that think being acquitted means that the criminal defendant has been exonerated or, as some like to say, was found to be innocent of the crime(s) for which he or she had been charged and stood trial before a jury of 12 people that found the defendant "Not Guilty," but what an acquittal really means is that there is not enough evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to conclude that the defendant committed the offense(s) charged in the criminal indictment that had been filed against him (or her) for which he (or she) just stood trial before a jury.
An acquittal doesn't mean that the defendant didn't commit the offense(s) charged. It simply means that a jury unanimously decided that there was insufficient proof that the defendant had committed the offense(s) for which he (or she) had been charged -- maybe there was an alibi witness that testified that the defendant was 400 miles away or maybe the timeline is too perfect to be credible or maybe the evidence was subjected to tampering by the police.
Since it's always better to free a guilty person than to punish an innocent person, in the criminal trial of the State of California v. Orenthal James Simpson, the defendant was acquitted because the jury could not unanimously find Simpson guilty of a crime, which means that there was insufficient evidence to warrant his being convicted of double murder. Now many people believe he should have been found Guilty based on the evidence that was presented against him, but none of those folks that feel this way were sitting as one of the 12 people on the jury that acquitted the man on these two murder counts. Now why did I bring all of this up?
Because as I pointed out earlier, if anyone dies, the Bible indicates that that individual has been acquitted of his or her sins. (Romans 6:7) But everyone that has ever been born on earth, with the exception of the Lord Jesus Christ, is the offspring of Adam, who sold all of his children, without exception, into bondage to sin and death, so that through this one man, sin and death came into the world: We were all conceived in sin, born this way and in debt to God for our sins.
The Bible says that the wages that sin pays is death, because sin is a work for which one cannot be compensated in any other way. Put simply, the sinner must die. However, God has permitted all mankind -- all of them sinners -- to live since he is not sustaining anyone's sinful body, which means that it will eventually breakdown and cease to function properly leading to death. As a result, the dead individual's debt can then be wiped off the books of justice as paid in full.
There is one sin that God will hold against the dead individual, for which his debt will remain on the books of justice as unpaid, with a Guilty verdict and not an acquittal, and that would be the unforgivable sin. But at one's death, one will be acquitted by Jehovah for all other sins, at which time the legal slate against him or her will be wiped clean. But an acquittal doesn't mean that the court of public opinion is going to regard you as an innocent person.
Jehovah doesn't view any sinner as innocent either, except for those he called and chosen and adopted as his sons, for in so doing he forgives their sins and declares these 144,000 individuals righteous for life. However, because Jesus died as a propitiatory sacrifice for the world's sins, God will have pardoned mankind having given Jesus the authority to resurrect the dead, so that they might start life anew with the clean slate that was obtained when they died.
While there will be those among mankind that will remember what things you did before you were acquitted, they will make an effort to see you in the same way as God sees you, as a sinner with a clean slate that is seeking to be declared righteous for life the same as they are after the Millennial Reign of Christ has ended and we are all of us subjected to the final test commences.
Those that survive Armageddon will be given a clean slate as well, despite the fact that they will have never died for their sins, for they will not only have been acquitted of their sins, but they will have been pardoned by means of Jesus' ransom enabling them to receive a resurrection and start life with the clean slate obtained upon their death.
Were it not for Christ Jesus' ransom sacrifice, God would have had no reason to pardon anyone and an acquittal would just have meant death, but gratefully, by means of the ransom provided through Christ Jesus, those of us not of the 144,000 have the hope of being resurrected during Christ's Millennial Reign as well as the prospect of inheriting the glorious freedom of he children of God -- eternal life under the kingdom of God. This is just to point out to what the acquittal we receive at death leads, and why our being both acquitted and pardoned is so very important.
@djeggnog