Infinite punishment for finite sins

[Sudsy]

To Bart -

For the record ... I stand by the "lens of Jesus" statement I've made and I've come to and held that position long before hearing from Sudsy.

Could you explain in more detail what you mean by the "lens of Jesus" and how this avoids varying interpretations on what Jesus said ? I'm all for considering what Jesus was meaning by what He said.

[Sudsy]

Sudsy.

Have you read 'Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue' with Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson? If not, I recommend this book to you and anyone else.

It covers a lot of Scripture on both sides. I do not agree with all Peterson believes or says, but I do think he successfully shows Annihilation is a real hard fit with a fuller view of Scripture. I was also expecting Peterson to be setting up strawmans and ad hominems, but was surprised to see it be the other way around. That is not to say Fudge did not do a good job for his part. For as reading chapter to chapter (Fudge and Peterson take turns), I was swinging back and forward between positions and questioning both along the way with my own knowledge.

In any case, I'd recommend it.

Thanks Kurieuo, I have looked into various books, videos, articles. I am very open to considering all views. I have books like 'Four Views On Hell', 'Hope Beyond Hell' and others that have become part of my journey on this subject. I see some articles regarding the book you recommend on the Internet and will consider purchasing a copy. Thanks, again.

[Byblos]

And looking at it in these most explict terms, how can one say they believe this to be truth and not be begging and pleading for everyone and anyone to escape such a destiny, is way beyond my reasoning ability. I cannot fathom how one can love their neighbour as themselves and not be doing everything in their power to save them from such a state. However, that is my reasoning problem to deal with because others do not see it that way. Perhaps just my wife and I, and a few others, are all screwed up with this line of reasoning.

Here we go again, complete with the rolling eyes emoticon to boot. This has got to be by far the most disingenuous, single-sided argument I have ever encountered.

So Byblos, I challenge you to consider this video by Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort - http://www.wayofthemaster.com/videolessons.shtml

Go to the section called The Firefighter and take some time to watch this video. These guys believe in the never ending torment view and this is how they think the response should be for those who believe in it.

By the way, I'm not suggesting that an annihilationist should not still care about people being saved from whatever punishment God determines to be just but rather if the punishment is never ending torment in fire then it only stands to reason that it should make hell even more scary and cause one to be even more diligent in the salvation of the lost. I don't know why this is hard to understand.

And the rolling eyes emoticon was only used to indicate I was pondering the issue of why our reasoning on this is not shared. I think you are reading something into this that this is some kind of unfair personal slam. All I'm saying is that one can believe something in their head but not in their heart as things believed in one's heart will drive how one responds. Nothing more than that. I can say I believe Jesus is Lord but if I don't show some indication that He is Lord in my life, then I only have a head belief and not one that affects how I live. I believe we live out our beliefs to the extent that they have gripped our hearts.

No, you're not suggesting that 'annihilationists should not still care about people being saved from whatever punishment God determines to be just' but the annihilationist viewpoint is just a little more humane, just a little less barbaric, just a little more tolerant, and just a little more believable. That is what drips from every post you make on the subject and frankly it is just a little ridiculous. You ought to be just as concerned and have just as much fervor IF NOT MORE with your neighbor's fate of annihilation. Every time you make this argument you ought to be making the same argument on both sides. Otherwise you are being insincere. But that's just me.

[Sudsy]

That is what drips from every post you make on the subject and frankly it is just a little ridiculous.

More disrespect of another's view - I guess respectful dialogue is not something desired here. But you are entitled to your opinions and so am I.

[Byblos]

That is what drips from every post you make on the subject and frankly it is just a little ridiculous.

More disrespect of another's view - I guess respectful dialogue is not something desired here. But you are entitled to your opinions and so am I.

No clue how you could possibly see that as disrespectful in any way and certainly none was intended. And the subject I was referring to is only the part I quoted, not your entire argument. You're right about having differences of opinion, I simply find yours extremely hypocritical to be incredulous towards us for not crawling on our hands and knees in an effort to save our neighbors from eternal torment in hell, yet you shy away from doing the very same for your neighbor in an effort to save him from certain annihilation of his free will to be separated from God.

[Sudsy]

I simply find yours extremely hypocritical to be incredulous towards us for not crawling on our hands and knees in an effort to save our neighbors from eternal torment in hell, yet you shy away from doing the very same for your neighbor in an effort to save him from certain annihilation of his free will to be separated from God.

So are you saying that if a person had a choice of being annihilated after being punished or maintaining their free will by living apart from God for eternity in burning flames, anyone would chose the latter ? I don't think there is any question what anyone would chose. I certainly don't know of anyone that would pick the never ending flames over non-existence.

There is no comparison here between the extent of punishing we are talking about. I don't believe God's wrath will take ages and ages to be satisfied as His wrath against sin was satisfied when Jesus took upon Himself the entire sins of the world and His terrible sufferings lasted less than a day. I don't know how long punishment may take for any one person other than I know God is not prone to torment anyone as Katabole pointed out in his post -

The examples I used in my previous post were to point out that God's judgment is quick and fair.

But I gave the link to the Firefighter video as I recalled this argument I was presenting was also being used in modern day evangelism and it might help some to think about the reality of holding such an endless, punishing in torment belief and the compassion this should trigger if it is really in one's heart. If you choose to think I'm hypocritical in this, thats your opinion. A hypocrite is play acting and I'm not trying to play out something I am not. The way I see it is those who say they believe in endless torment and don't live accordingly just might fall into that category. They will have to determine if that is true or not.

IMO, God is morally justified in destroying the wicked because he respects their human choices. Much of this issue hinges on whether or not one believes God will destroy man's soul and body Matthew 10:28 (whether everyone has an immortal soul or not). I believe He gives immortality to those who qualify with His conditions for salvation and everyone else will reap what they have sown and then be destroyed. This fits so well with who God is throughout scripture, IMO.

[Byblos]

I simply find yours extremely hypocritical to be incredulous towards us for not crawling on our hands and knees in an effort to save our neighbors from eternal torment in hell, yet you shy away from doing the very same for your neighbor in an effort to save him from certain annihilation of his free will to be separated from God.

So are you saying that if a person had a choice of being annihilated after being punished or maintaining their free will by living apart from God for eternity in burning flames, anyone would chose the latter ? I don't think there is any question what anyone would chose. I certainly don't know of anyone that would pick the never ending flames over non-existence.

That is simply your opinion, nothing more. Eternal nothingness and having my free will subverted terrifies me several degrees of magnitude more than a conscious decision I make.

There is no comparison here between the extent of punishing we are talking about. I don't believe God's wrath will take ages and ages to be satisfied as His wrath against sin was satisfied when Jesus took upon Himself the entire sins of the world and His terrible sufferings lasted less than a day. I don't know how long punishment may take for any one person other than I know God is not prone to torment anyone as Katabole pointed out in his post -

The examples I used in my previous post were to point out that God's judgment is quick and fair.

And what is more fair than allowing a person to LIVE with the conscious decision they make to be separated from God?

But I gave the link to the Firefighter video as I recalled this argument I was presenting was also being used in modern day evangelism and it might help some to think about the reality of holding such an endless, punishing in torment belief and the compassion this should trigger if it is really in one's heart. If you choose to think I'm hypocritical in this, thats your opinion. A hypocrite is play acting and I'm not trying to play out something I am not. The way I see it is those who say they believe in endless torment and don't live accordingly just might fall into that category. They will have to determine if that is true or not.

No, a hypocrite is a person who thinks people who believe in hell ought to live a certain way while exempting people who don't believe in hell from living the exact same way. That is the hight of hypocrisy because it only serves to highlight some perceived weakness in a position while ignoring the weaknesses of the counter-position. You see, I would be arguing this point irrespective of my position on hell. It's just a matter of being consistent in one's position.

IMO, God is morally justified in destroying the wicked because he respects their human choices.

And that is where we believe you would be wrong. If God respects our choices (and I believe he does) then He would let us LIVE with those choices, no matter how uncomfortable some might feel at the prospect.

Much of this issue hinges on whether or not one believes God will destroy man's soul and body Matthew 10:28 (whether everyone has an immortal soul or not). I believe He gives immortality to those who qualify with His conditions for salvation and everyone else will reap what they have sown and then be destroyed. This fits so well with who God is throughout scripture, IMO.

I might agree with you there (that this is where the crux of the argument lies) so perhaps we can shift the conversation in that direction. I had asked this question to Bav so I'd be interested to hear your take on it: who was Jesus preaching to after he died and before the resurrection?

[Sudsy]

Eternal nothingness and having my free will subverted terrifies me several degrees of magnitude more than a conscious decision I make.

Really ? So, you would gladly accept eternal torment in a lake of fire if it meant surrendering your free will to exist forever by being destroyed. Hmmmm, remarkable.

And what is more fair than allowing a person to LIVE with the conscious decision they make to be separated from God?

I would say this would be fair only if the person was fully aware that their choice was to burn eternally in never ending torment, not to just be eternally separated from God. Many people don't care to have God in their lives but they also would not choose to suffer eternal punishing. If this choice was clearly presented to any rational human being, I think the obvious choice would be to avoid the suffering andtherefore, few will ever be in this lake of fire.

No, a hypocrite is a person who thinks people who believe in hell ought to live a certain way while exempting people who don't believe in hell from living the exact same way.

You obviously don't get the difference in the vastly two different destinies we are talking about. You can think that annihilation is as terrible as never ending punishment as you wish but I doubt very few people would agree with that way of looking at things. Using the hypocrite tactic doesn't dismiss the argument that if you are not living according to your belief in eternal torment you don't have much compassion for others or this belief is only in your head and not in your heart. And yes, this is my opinion.

who was Jesus preaching to after he died and before the resurrection?

Why don't you give your opinion and we can go from there ?

[BavarianWheels]

Please Stop implying the word Tradition to us. The Gig is up… very Saul Alinsky like…

Therefore please no longer use ‘T’ or Traditional …

I find this hilarious. Who cares what it is called. If you're confident in this "traditional" interpretation as being the correct interpretaion of scripture, why are you scared of calling it 'traditional'?

If it's traditional with support of scripture, why fear a label? If you want to change it, don't make it to be "evil" to call it traditional, simply change your own wording and quit using Sudsy's "diabolical labeling"...

Katabole, if you're interested in starting a topic (this is the first post of the day so I haven't seen all the new stuff since last Friday) on the 1000 years and what you meant by what you said, I'd be interested. Otherwise I'm happy to let it be.

B.W. - You have yet to post an interpretation of judgment.

Which word from Hebrew and Greek - one specific one or all of them?

Do you want contextual renderings or basic definitions for each word or one specific one to discuss?

Now all of a sudden there are many ways to interpret 'judgment'? Seems a bit convenient considering this thread.
.
.

[Byblos]

Eternal nothingness and having my free will subverted terrifies me several degrees of magnitude more than a conscious decision I make.

Really ? So, you would gladly accept eternal torment in a lake of fire if it meant surrendering your free will to exist forever by being destroyed. Hmmmm, remarkable.

Nothing remarkable about it, considering it is the Traditional view .

And what is more fair than allowing a person to LIVE with the conscious decision they make to be separated from God?

I would say this would be fair only if the person was fully aware that their choice was to burn eternally in never ending torment, not to just be eternally separated from God. Many people don't care to have God in their lives but they also would not choose to suffer eternal punishing. If this choice was clearly presented to any rational human being, I think the obvious choice would be to avoid the suffering andtherefore, few will ever be in this lake of fire.

And yet many have chosen it, knowing full well what the Traditional view on hell is.

No, a hypocrite is a person who thinks people who believe in hell ought to live a certain way while exempting people who don't believe in hell from living the exact same way.

You obviously don't get the difference in the vastly two different destinies we are talking about. You can think that annihilation is as terrible as never ending punishment as you wish but I doubt very few people would agree with that way of looking at things. Using the hypocrite tactic doesn't dismiss the argument that if you are not living according to your belief in eternal torment you don't have much compassion for others or this belief is only in your head and not in your heart. And yes, this is my opinion.

You obviously can't accept the fact that I do get the difference and I still disagree with you. But that, regardless, is NOT what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is the fact that you obviously still don't see how hypocritical a position it is to demand something of hell believers you do not demand of annihilationists, considering the more important outcome of both is the same, i.e. eternal separation from God. Not sure how much more clearly I can explain it so let's move on (but I reserve the right to call you on it every time you use it ).

who was Jesus preaching to after he died and before the resurrection?

Why don't you give your opinion and we can go from there ?

Fortunately for me I don't have to go with just my opinion but let's just say that the Traditional interpretation is that Jesus was preaching in abode of the dead, in Abraham's bosom, in Hades, take your pick. The consensus though is that 1) he was preaching, and 2) he was preaching to someone (1 Peter 3:18-20, 2 Peter 2:4-5, Eph 4:8-10, Luke 16:19-31).

[Byblos]

B.W. - You have yet to post an interpretation of judgment.

Which word from Hebrew and Greek - one specific one or all of them?

Do you want contextual renderings or basic definitions for each word or one specific one to discuss?

Now all of a sudden there are many ways to interpret 'judgment'? Seems a bit convenient considering this thread.
.
.

If there aren't many ways to interpret it why are you asking for a definition then? Here's Webster's:

1
a : a formal utterance of an authoritative opinion
b : an opinion so pronounced

2
a : a formal decision given by a court
b (1) : an obligation (as a debt) created by the decree of a court (2) : a certificate evidencing such a decree

3
a capitalized : the final judging of humankind by God
b : a divine sentence or decision; specifically : a calamity held to be sent by God

4
a : the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing
b : an opinion or estimate so formed

5
a : the capacity for judging : discernment
b : the exercise of this capacity

6
: a proposition stating something believed or asserted

[BavarianWheels]

B.W. - You have yet to post an interpretation of judgment.

Which word from Hebrew and Greek - one specific one or all of them?

Do you want contextual renderings or basic definitions for each word or one specific one to discuss?

Now all of a sudden there are many ways to interpret 'judgment'? Seems a bit convenient considering this thread.

If there aren't many ways to interpret it why are you asking for a definition then? Here's Webster's:

For clarification, is this to say that Webster's is in line with the biblical interpretation?
.
.

[Byblos]

B.W. - You have yet to post an interpretation of judgment.

Which word from Hebrew and Greek - one specific one or all of them?

Do you want contextual renderings or basic definitions for each word or one specific one to discuss?

Now all of a sudden there are many ways to interpret 'judgment'? Seems a bit convenient considering this thread.

If there aren't many ways to interpret it why are you asking for a definition then? Here's Webster's:

For clarification, is this to say that Webster's is in line with the biblical interpretation?
.
.

So there is more than one interpretation then? I don't know, what do you think the biblical interpretation is?

[BavarianWheels]

So there is more than one interpretation then? I don't know, what do you think the biblical interpretation is?

That's what I'm trying to figure out. May I assume, since you didn't make more clarification, that this then is in line with the biblical interpretation or understanding of 'judgment'?

I'll still allow for B.W.'s input.
.
.

[Sudsy]

Eternal nothingness and having my free will subverted terrifies me several degrees of magnitude more than a conscious decision I make.

Really ? So, you would gladly accept eternal torment in a lake of fire if it meant surrendering your free will to exist forever by being destroyed. Hmmmm, remarkable.

Nothing remarkable about it, considering it is the Traditional view .

Good to see you are not afraid to use the term Traditional view. I certainly don't dismiss this view because it is traditional. Most of my beliefs are quite traditional and will remain as such unless they can be proven otherwise scripturally.

And what is more fair than allowing a person to LIVE with the conscious decision they make to be separated from God?

I would say this would be fair only if the person was fully aware that their choice was to burn eternally in never ending torment, not to just be eternally separated from God. Many people don't care to have God in their lives but they also would not choose to suffer eternal punishing. If this choice was clearly presented to any rational human being, I think the obvious choice would be to avoid the suffering andtherefore, few will ever be in this lake of fire.

And yet many have chosen it, knowing full well what the Traditional view on hell is.

But what about the millions that have not been exposed to the Traditional view of endless torment ? And today, as has been recognized by all views, the Traditional view is seldom preached anymore nor is it discussed much in evangelism. Isn't this being quite deceptive and very coldhearted ? And do you really think the apostles gave full explanation of eternal torment and then just didn't record any of this doctrine in the book of Acts and in the letters they wrote to the churches ? At least my own earthly father stood on a street corner and preached 'hell fire' and also witnessed daily including that 'hell to shun' regardless of the mocking he received. IMO, he lived out this belief. I have great respect for him even though I disagree with him on this topic.

No, a hypocrite is a person who thinks people who believe in hell ought to live a certain way while exempting people who don't believe in hell from living the exact same way.

You obviously don't get the difference in the vastly two different destinies we are talking about. You can think that annihilation is as terrible as never ending punishment as you wish but I doubt very few people would agree with that way of looking at things. Using the hypocrite tactic doesn't dismiss the argument that if you are not living according to your belief in eternal torment you don't have much compassion for others or this belief is only in your head and not in your heart. And yes, this is my opinion.

You obviously can't accept the fact that I do get the difference and I still disagree with you. But that, regardless, is NOT what I'm arguing. What I am arguing is the fact that you obviously still don't see how hypocritical a position it is to demand something of hell believers you do not demand of annihilationists, considering the more important outcome of both is the same, i.e. eternal separation from God. Not sure how much more clearly I can explain it so let's move on (but I reserve the right to call you on it every time you use it ).

Yes, you are correct, I don't see a separation from God in never ending, burning torment being anything close to a separation from God where one ceases to exist. Yes, lets move on (and I too reserve the right to remind 'T' viewers to check out if they have a heart belief in never ending torment or just a head belief which means little) .

who was Jesus preaching to after he died and before the resurrection?

Why don't you give your opinion and we can go from there ?

Fortunately for me I don't have to go with just my opinion but let's just say that the Traditional interpretation is that Jesus was preaching in abode of the dead, in Abraham's bosom, in Hades, take your pick. The consensus though is that 1) he was preaching, and 2) he was preaching to someone (1 Peter 3:18-20, 2 Peter 2:4-5, Eph 4:8-10, Luke 16:19-31).

So, what does this prove ? What are you getting at ? Some believe Jesus was explaining to both those who had faith in God and those who did not what He had accomplished on the cross. Some believe that those who had previously died without faith, then had a chance to accept this message, while others maintain they heard the message but were not allowed to repent. Myself, I am trusting that God will do whatever it takes to be just and fair to all and if this was the means He used to give OT people a chance to repent, great.