Infinite punishment for finite sins

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
This assumes, of course, that God didn't realize sin would creep in when He created Adam.

The question is, then, will we be returned to the point of creation, that is will we be again made like Adam and Eve were, or will we be changed to something different (not physically alien-like), but different to Adam and Eve in some respect?

B.W., you simply interpret hell different. I think we can all agree hell will burn, it will be painful and no one in hell will enjoy their duration, whatever that be. I simply am of the interpretation that much like literal translation of Sodom and Gomorrah, the fire will burn and only ashes will be left in the end.
.
.

[Sudsy]

Question: What does one learn about the nature of sin?

The nature of sin is anything that falls short of the glory of God. Anything - thoughts, words, deeds, etc.

The wages of this sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

I believe Adam was first given immortality but in Genesis 2:16-17 the condition for this immortality was made clear.

Adam disobeyed and therefore forefeited his immortality. The very day he sinned, part of him died. It obviously was not the physical part of Adam that died on that very day but rather it was the death of his immortal nature, a spiritual death. Spiritual death simply means that the human spirit is dead to God. When the human spirit is dead to God it is impossible to have a relationship with Him because the human spirit is the facet of human nature that can have a relationship with God. Adam went and hid himself from God. As Jesus said: “God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth” John 4:24. If a person is spiritually dead it is impossible to know and worship God in spirit and truth. That is why we must be born again - Jesus, the second Adam, taught that we need to be spiritually born again to have a relationship with God see John 3:3-6. Those who are not spiritually born again have no immortality and the result of their sinning is death both the first and the second.

So, God alone has immortality. 1 Timothy 6:16. This immortality is granted to those who put their faith in Christ alone as stated in 2 Timothy 1:10, 1 Cor. 15:22, 1 Peter 1:23.

I find it interesting that the original lie that satan used was 'you shall not surely die'. Isn't this the same as saying, you will not lose your immortality ? This sounds much like this view that God has given us all unconditional immortality because we are made in His image. I believe scriptures are quite clear that we must be born again if we are to become immortal, it is not something that is just built in and can never be changed.

And this is the key difference in beliefs betwen the 'T' and 'A' view. You either believe the arguments above with it's scriptural support or you interpret being made in the image of God as including an unconditional immortal nature. If one believes the latter, I wonder why we wouldn't also have various other infinite characteristics of God - such as omnipotence (all-powerful), omniscience (all-knowing) and omnipresence (present everywhere at the same time) ?

From this never ending concept comes this never ending torment of punishing. But this conflicts greatly with so many scriptures that must be spun to fit this theory. Furthermore, then it gets really weird to think that people choose this never ending punishing because God in love will give us what we so desire.

I think God gave us some good common sense when looking at theories on His judgment and sentence and they are not just something coming from our emotions as some would like us to believe. If we stray too far from common sense and excuse this that God's ways are not man's ways,then, IMO, we are in shaky ground with our theories. And since the apostles and their Acts as recorded in the NT, nowhere reflect any indication that never ending punishing is a truth, I think we should be quite careful in jumping on the band wagon of the 'T' view. Perhaps, if one determines that both theories have their merits, then it would be best to leave this with God. It is a non-essential belief regardless of the fervour it causes to determine which is correct.

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
Nice post Sudsy!

If I may add one point to the above using two texts.

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

We are not immortal. Nothing about us is immortal if we need to seek immortality and thus eternal life. We are perishable. To make the perishable or mortal able to suffer for eternity is to make ALL immortal and ALL are given eternal life.
.
.

[B. W.]

.
.
Nice post Sudsy!

If I may add one point to the above using two texts.

God "will give to each person according to what he has done." To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life.

For the perishable must clothe itself with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality. 54 When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, then the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

We are not immortal. Nothing about us is immortal if we need to seek immortality and thus eternal life. We are perishable. To make the perishable or mortal able to suffer for eternity is to make ALL immortal and ALL are given eternal life.
.
.

For conditional immortality to be true, God would be guilty of the injustice of demonstrating Partiality, as well as failure to live according to his own nature as the Living God. Again, God designed humanity in his eternal image – he place eternity in the heart because what He does endures forever. God granted Humanity a promise in Genesis 1:28. To keep it faithfully, even after sin entered the world, and be able to show no partiality would involve designing a place of eternal punishment for beings created to be eternal or eternal life with God – reconciled.

Again, it is you that need to wrestle with God on this matter, not me.

Question: Do you take James 3:1 as seriously as I do?

One last point – if we were indeed created to non-live after death, then sin would be finite. If this were so, punishing someone with non-existence who sins extremely less seriously than another who sins extremely more would conclusively prove God as being Partial and exercising unjust Judgment as the unequalness of the crimes (sins) does not fit the punishment of non-being.

And Sudsy, Man does indeed die and after that comes judgment: Our mortal physical being dies but the spirit returns to God who made it – for Judgment. The bible teaches this plainly. The idea the devil was implanting in Adam and Eve was how to escape Judgment of standing before God. Adam and Eve sinned by coming into an understanding that they could now misuse the knowledge of good and evil to manipulate God by forcing God to live up to his own moral standards in an attempt escape just judgment just like the serpent who spoke to them did.

Please note: Adam and Eve did not drop dead immediately after eating the fruit but continued to live on in ruin and bodily decline for many years before their physical death occurred ushering them before God in Judgment. Hence the devil’s lie appealed to them, ‘will not surly die' because they reasoned that they could escape judgment thru the use of the knowledge of good and evil. How -By forcing God to live according to his own standards, they could game God, by seeking what's best for man.

God called to them. They both stood before God in shame, not fear of death, intimately knowing God as they did, understood by standing before God as afraid (revering type of fear), God would not violate His own standards of grace and equity by outright killing them. God did the opposite, revealed the way back to Him thru reconciliation on His terms or the receiving the punishment of eternal banishment. Mortal dying came slowly offering the times for God to offer His plan/His call to each future generation. Mortal death is the cut off point which one then faces judgment (Heb 9:27).
-
-
-

[Sudsy]

One last point – if we were indeed created to non-live after death, then sin would be finite. If this were so, punishing someone with non-existence who sins extremely less seriously than another who sins extremely more would conclusively prove God as being Partial and exercising unjust Judgment as the unequalness of the crimes (sins) does not fit the punishment of non-being.

Say what ? . God is just in giving out whatever punishment fits the crimes as He determines not as you determine. What we sow, we reap. After that occurs, there is non-existence. God, in no way, is therefore impartial. You are really wrestling alright but wrestling to hold unto your reasonings.

[B. W.]

One last point – if we were indeed created to non-live after death, then sin would be finite. If this were so, punishing someone with non-existence who sins extremely less seriously than another who sins extremely more would conclusively prove God as being Partial and exercising unjust Judgment as the unequalness of the crimes (sins) does not fit the punishment of non-being.

Say what ? God is just in giving out whatever punishment fits the crimes as He determines not as you determine. What we sow, we reap. After that occurs, there is non-existence. God, in no way, is therefore impartial. You are really wrestling alright but wrestling to hold unto your reasonings.

Not really Sudsy - how does ‘What we sow, we reap’ fit into justification for non-existence if what one sown does not deserve non-existence?

What we sow, we reap fits eternal punishment as well as eternal banishment for beings created and purposed by God to live eternally.
-
-
-

[BavarianWheels]

For conditional immortality to be true,

So you're saying the above texts are lies and to seek immortality is basically redundant?

God would be guilty of the injustice of demonstrating Partiality,

God isn't partial? Then explain why ALL aren't simply saved or why there is the lost and the saved.

Again, God designed humanity in his eternal image

No where does it say He did in His "eternal" image.

he place eternity in the heart because what He does endures forever.

...and yet the earth will be destroyed

God granted Humanity a promise in Genesis 1:28. To keep it faithfully, even after sin entered the world, and be able to show no partiality would involve designing a place of eternal punishment for beings created to be eternal or eternal life with God – reconciled.

So then you acknowledge that eternal life is given to every single human being and all will be changed from perishable to imperishable and from mortal to immortal. Again, to believe this is to make scripture lie. See txt above.

Again, it is you that need to wrestle with God on this matter, not me.

The wrestle "match" is with you, not God. Are you equating yourself with God?

Question: Do you take James 3:1 as seriously as I do and state your real name behind what you write or hide behind an avatar?

Now you're interpreting scripture to say we shouldn't "hide" behind avatars? My avatar is me...I'm not hiding. I choose not to display my real name as it is not very wise to do so in this day and age, not because I'm afraid of my beliefs being attributed to ME in person.

One last point – if we were indeed created to non-live after death,

LOL...no contradiction there...LOL.

then sin would be finite.

"Seventy `sevens' are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish* transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the most holy.

I guess, once again, the scripture lies and there is no end to sin...as you say, B.W.

If this were so, punishing someone with non-existence who sins extremely less seriously than another who sins extremely more would conclusively prove God as being Partial and exercising unjust Judgment as the unequalness of the crimes (sins) does not fit the punishment of non-being.

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord

Please provide a literal translation for this text.
.
.

[BavarianWheels]

And Sudsy, Man does indeed die and after that comes judgment: Our mortal physical being dies but the spirit returns to God who made it – for Judgment. The bible teaches this plainly. The idea the devil was implanting in Adam and Eve was how to escape Judgment of standing before God. Adam and Eve sinned by coming into an understanding that they could now misuse the knowledge of good and evil to manipulate God by forcing God to live up to his own moral standards in an attempt escape just judgment just like the serpent who spoke to them did.

Please note: Adam and Eve did not drop dead immediately after eating the fruit but continued to live on in ruin and bodily decline for many years before their physical death occurred ushering them before God in Judgment. Hence the devil’s lie appealed to them, ‘will not surly die' because they reasoned that they could escape judgment thru the use of the knowledge of good and evil. How -By forcing God to live according to his own standards, they could game God, by seeking what's best for man.

God called to them. They both stood before God in shame, not fear of death, intimately knowing God as they did, understood by standing before God as afraid (revering type of fear), God would not violate His own standards of grace and equity by outright killing them. God did the opposite, revealed the way back to Him thru reconciliation on His terms or the receiving the punishment of eternal banishment. Mortal dying came slowly offering the times for God to offer His plan/His call to each future generation. Mortal death is the cut off point which one then faces judgment (Heb 9:27).

All this was edited after I posted...something fishy going on here. This wasn't there before.

Regardless, Sudsy's post a few back explains quite well why this is wrong.
.
.

[B. W.]

BavarianWheels all I am asking is for you to check your doctrines measured to scriptures that objectively reveal God's Character and Nature and Attributes. If you chose to do so or not, is your own choice. I am not forcing you or anyone as to what to believe but seeking for readers to investigate and come to their own conclusions. Yes I do understand how Annihilationist use interpretations that favor what is best for man in reading scriptures and word meanings. That is part of investigating, coming to terms with error and defining it, measured in accordance with God’s Character. Again, this is a matter for you and the Lord to wrestle with.

Remember, I am not the one trying to force annihilationism onto people as they only way to believe. I can only present a manner by which one can come to terms with the Truth’s about God. Doing so allows each to come to their-own conclusions. The rest is between them and the Lord.
-
-
-

[BavarianWheels]

BavarianWheels all I am asking is for you to check your doctrines measured to scriptures that objectively reveal God's Character and Nature and Attributes. If you chose to do so or not, is your own choice. I am not forcing you or anyone as to what to believe but seeking for readers to investigate and come to their own conclusions. Yes I do understand how Annihilationist use interpretations that favor what is best for man in reading scriptures and word meanings. That is part of investigating, coming to terms with error and defining it, measured in accordance with God’s Character. Again, this is a matter for you and the Lord to wrestle with.

Remember, I am not the one trying to force annihilationism onto people as they only way to believe. I can only present a manner by which one can come to terms with the Truth’s about God. Doing so allows each to come to their-own conclusions. The rest is between them and the Lord.

At least it seems you have moved from giving lessons and talking down. But you're still talking down.

Let's begin

No one is trying to force annihilationism onto anyone. Please refer to the two word quote above.
.
.

[Canuckster1127]

Just a quick reminder to everyone on this thread, if the conversation seems to be heating up a little, consider the following:

1. Address the issue, not the person.
2. If you've said everything you have to say on an issue and things are beginning to repeat with more heat (hey! that rhymes!) consider stepping back from the conversation at least temporarily. When more than one person is determined to get in the last word, that's a guarantee that there won't be a last word.
3. If you're finding it difficult to avoid responding with some heat, consider taking a brief time out and return and post when you're a little less emotional.

I'm reminding myself of these things as well. I've been observing this thread in detail and haven't been deeply involved in it, so I'm giving this as a general observation, again, for all involved.

bart

[Sudsy]

As I said before, this debate does go in circles and gets into much repetition. I failed to back away from this a couple times as I don't care for certain techniques being used in this type of debating. I got into using them myself. There is a much more cordial way to debate these subjects if we share what the view is, give it's scriptural support and not pick holes in an opposing view. Just allow the readers to make up their mind as to what view they conclude is right. Let them determine what reasonings from scriptures appear to best support the view. I, personally would like to see this approach taken in more threads but it will take setting aside our egoes and insecurities.

I applaud this site for not thinking one view was so cut and dry it should be added to the statement of faith. And I have enjoyed digging into this non-essential subject to learn further some of the logic on all sides. I also appreciate the patience of the moderators when the put downs, at times, might sound quite personal. I think they have been quite fair.

I do wonder though what this debate will be like in 10 years from now. Already in my lifetime I have seen quite a change in the sermons and I don't recall ever hearing any sermon in my local, evangelical church on eternal torment. Will there be a return to some of these more prominent, traditional views with certain perceived risks involved ? Will this be seen as a defining issue to separate true believers from the perceived liberal minded Christian ? Or will this and other traditional views be challenged and some abandoned officially as the dominant Christian perspective ? How will this next generation understand God and what He is doing and will do accordingly ?

[B. W.]

....No one is trying to force annihilationism onto anyone...

Response was to the web link Sudsy Posted with inflammatory quotes cited by leaders of Annihilationist doctrine - These charges must be challenged...

http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo ... tion/6.htm

Annihilationism verses eternal cognizant just punishment can be disagreed upon between Christians. Christian Annihilationist and Christians who hold the Orthodox view agree on points of salvation through Christ thus this debate is a non-essential doctrine.

However when cults such as Jehovah Witnesses, Christdelphelian, Mormons, etc and etc, use annihilationism and variations of annihilationism it does become an essential doctrine because these do no adhere to the basic truths about Christ and salvation wrought by God’s grace thru faith…

Because cults use annihilationism to buttress their non-Christian doctrines does not make a Christian who holds to annihilationist doctrine a heretic or a hypocrite. The web link posted by Sudsy – makes those that hold to orthodox doctrine into hypocrites and at worse believing in a cruel doctrine (accord to Fudge/Pinnock) a doctrine that must be eradicated at all cost - a serious charge.

To post such a link, with continued reference that appeal...see below:

...It is not surprising that today we seldom hear sermons on hellfire even from fundamentalist preachers, who theoretically are still committed to such a belief. John Walvoord, himself a fundamentalist, suggests that the reluctance to preach on hellfire is due primarily to the fear of proclaiming an unpopular doctrine.2 In my view, the problem is not merely the reluctance of preachers today to tell the truth about hell, but primarily the awareness that the traditional view of hellfire is morally intolerable and Biblically questionable

Clark Pinnock keenly observes: "Their reticence [to preach on hellfire] is not so much due to a lack of integrity in proclaiming the truth as to not having the stomach for preaching a doctrine that amounts to sadism raised to new levels of finesse. Something inside tells them, perhaps on an instinctual level, that the God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ is not the kind of deity who tortures people (even the worst of sinners) in this way. I take the silence of the fundamentalist preachers to be testimony to their longing for a revised doctrine of the nature of hell."3 It is such a longing, I believe, that is encouraging theologians today to revise the traditional view of hell and to propose alternative interpretations of the scriptural data.
http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo ... tion/6.htm

This train of thought summed up often here as – “How can Christians not witness knowing such cruelty awaits eternally – they can’t’ because they don’t believe it- so I’ll prove it by reminding them of this often – as it is morally superior argument to use when confronting orthodox Christians on websites…

Quote from article:

Morally, the doctrine of eternal conscious torment is incompatible with the Biblical revelation of divine love and justice. The moral intuition God has implanted within our consciences cannot justify the insatiable cruelty of a God who subjects sinners to unending torments. Such a God is like a bloodthirsty monster and not like the loving Father revealed to us by Jesus Christ. http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo ... tion/6.htm

Note the underlined portion I underline that indeed supports a ‘what’s best for man centered’ interpretation of annihilationist doctrine and its continued appeals to what best serves man

Such charges as this should not go unanswered. Why it is so difficult to reason with so many annihilationist is that, well, there are many not willing to listen to reason derived from the bible that factually, objectively, reveals what is best for God and why. You cannot get a word in edgewise. You are called names as the article reveals as well as the leadership of promoting annihilationism do.

Orthodox Christians do not shun annihilationist Christians as they do us – we tire of the unjust bogus conclusions and false accusations and judgments demanding us to act a certain way and believe as they, always being tossed our way and always refusing any formal hearing on the matter by the Sal Alinsky method of demeaning the opposition, calling into question integrity, and personally destroying a person who does not believe as they. (Read the quotes above – I can cite more that are far worse)

Such accusations, judgments, and bogus conclusions and methods are based solely on man’s fallen heart where moral intuition stems from to buttress their conclusions. Such matters resolving this can only be answered by exploring who God is not by how one’s heart wishes him to be. Doing so avoids adding to God’s word and keeps one focused as to the purpose of God’s salvation.

That is why I responded in the manners I did. From it, the reader can decide what they believe by hearing either side of the debate and noting which side seeks what is best for men and the other that seeks what is best for God.
-
-
-

[BavarianWheels]

.
.
You found statements to disagree with, however you (apparently) found no scripture to disagree with in the article. You seem to think that just because it is something that may disagree with the human understanding of God means it should be disagreed with in total....yet it is your position that we are made in the "eternal image" of God.

It doesn't seem you read the whole thing if that's all you could find to disagree with. Actually it's a piece of the book, "Immortality or Resurrection?" which I have at home.

Point of interest...Dr. Bacchiocchi had lunch with me in my home a few years back and had spent a few Sabbath afternoons chatting with him. He and I disagree on a few points. Hell not being one of those.
.
.

[B. W.]

.
.
You found statements to disagree with, however you (apparently) found no scripture to disagree with in the article. You seem to think that just because it is something that may disagree with the human understanding of God means it should be disagreed with in total....yet it is your position that we are made in the "eternal image" of God.

It doesn't seem you read the whole thing if that's all you could find to disagree with.

Point of interest...Dr. Bacchiocchi had lunch with me in my home a few years back and had spent a few Sabbath afternoons chatting with him. He and I disagree on a few points. Hell not being one of those.

I did so with scripture and also tried to have as many people add to the summary from Scriptures that objectively define who God is, Jdavis, myself, Bart, and Sudsy are the only ones who did so far (not too late) so people can use these own their own to test what they believe about doctrines. All I can do is point out what is going on. People can review these pages as well as read from themselves and the statements made by both sides. People come here and read the links - posting such links need addressed. I should of made myself clearer in this than I did but I did not. I tried by alluding to Fudge and Pinnock's comments for this purpose, again people can read what is posted here.

What do you think of Clark Pinnock's statement: "It is such a longing, I believe, that is encouraging theologians today to revise the traditional view of hell and to propose alternative interpretations of the scriptural data."

Propose alternative interpretations? To redefine the words of Jesus in Matthew 25:41, 46 and elsewhere? Based on what? Propose alternative interpretations of God's love and Justice based on what's serves man best without even consulting the Lord on the matter through the bible? How can we get anywhere as long as it is dogmatically presupposed that these propose alternative interpretations of scripture are the correct and only correct ones?

I am glad you can be civil with those who you disagree with. I have SDA friends and we get along great too. so this really is a non-issue for many because we agree on the fundamentals of salvation thru Christ...
-
-
-