Why an eternal hell?

[seeingeyes]

Holo's argument is under the assumption that God works by the justice system and mentality of human men, rather than the justice system on earth being merely a "shadow" of the spiritual and Holy justice of Almighty God. Filled with flaws and filled with a misunderstanding of human depravity, the holiness of God, and the evil heart.

Really? 'Justice' for us means 'you get what you deserve'. Isn't that the very same 'justice' that we attribute to God?

 

[holo]

How come no one wants to talk about what justice is? I try to bring it up in these threads, but no one wants to hash it out.

Am I losing my mind that the definition of 'justice' might be relevant to the discussion of hell? Sometimes I get the feeling that I'm standing on a soapbox preaching the evils of nail polish.

So give it to me straight, Holo. I trust your discernment. Am I one of those people?

Not sure what you mean? Are you one of who?

 

[holo]

Holo's argument is under the assumption that God works by the justice system and mentality of human men, rather than the justice system on earth being merely a "shadow" of the spiritual and Holy justice of Almighty God. Filled with flaws and filled with a misunderstanding of human depravity, the holiness of God, and the evil heart.

Is it a misunderstanding of God's holiness to have a hard time believing he can both be good and torture someone infinitely?

 

[seeingeyes]

Not sure what you mean? Are you one of who?

Am I one of those folks that has a 'pet doctrine' that trumps everything else in their mind. But everyone else feels bad for the poor dear because of their obviously irrelevant obsession.

I feel like no one wants to discuss the definition of 'justice'. Is that because only a fool would need to consider such a thing? Am I so far gone that I have no idea what is relevant?

Am I preaching about nail polish?

 

[Armistead14]

Am I one of those folks that has a 'pet doctrine' that trumps everything else in their mind. But everyone else feels bad for the poor dear because of their obviously irrelevant obsession.

I feel like no one wants to discuss the definition of 'justice'. Is that because only a fool would need to consider such a thing? Am I so far gone that I have no idea what is relevant?

Am I preaching about nail polish?

I discuss justice all the time.

I think the question is, can failed finite human beings effected by 1000's of human factors, culture, etc., be judged by a perfect infinite standard.

Again, if sin equals eternal torture and Christ made equal payment for that sin, he would have to be eternally tortured.

Where sin abounded, did not grace more abound?

 

[seeingeyes]

I discuss justice all the time.

I think the question is, can failed finite human beings effected by 1000's of human factors, culture, etc., be judged by a perfect infinite standard.

Again, if sin equals eternal torture and Christ made equal payment for that sin, he would have to be eternally tortured.

Where sin abounded, did not grace more abound?

Ok, good. So I'm not a complete quack. (Half a quack maybe?)

 

[holo]

Am I one of those folks that has a 'pet doctrine' that trumps everything else in their mind. But everyone else feels bad for the poor dear because of their obviously irrelevant obsession.

I feel like no one wants to discuss the definition of 'justice'. Is that because only a fool would need to consider such a thing? Am I so far gone that I have no idea what is relevant?

Am I preaching about nail polish?

It's easy to see others' pet doctrines and how they are poorly grounded in the bible, but not as easy to see one's own. Sometimes we'll exchange one doctrine for another, but most of the time we interpret anything and everything in light of what we already (like to) believe.

The definition of justice... perhaps it's as easy as "an eye for an eye."

 

[seeingeyes]

It's easy to see others' pet doctrines and how they are poorly grounded in the bible, but not as easy to see one's own. Sometimes we'll exchange one doctrine for another, but most of the time we interpret anything and everything in light of what we already (like to) believe.

Amen! That's why I was asking.

(And now that I feel reassured that I am only half a quack, I started a thread over in GT about this topic. We'll see how it goes, I guess. )

The definition of justice... perhaps it's as easy as "an eye for an eye."

That is certainly the definition for man.

So those who do not believe in eternal torment say, "this clearly isn't just", and those who do believe in eternal torment say, "this must be just...but we can't see how".

But what if God's definition of justice is not 'an eye for an eye'? I mean, none of us should be surprised to find out that His ways are actually not our ways.

And the more I look into it, the more different God's justice looks from our own. Not just different in degree or knowledge but qualitatively different from what we call justice.

Here's the verses I started with back on page 75:

"This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place." (Jeremiah 22:3)

“This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’" (Zechariah 7:9-10)

“This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’" (Zechariah 7:9-10)

God's version of showing 'justice' looks suspiciously similar to our version of showing 'kindness'.

What do you think?

 

[Blessedj01]

That's true, but it is one of the aspects of the definition I gave you. I'm an Aussie. If I said to you, 'g'day mate how ya doin'? and I called you a shiela, would that be correct to use on an international forum like this one? Of course not! But they are part of Aussie slang - one of the definitions of slang.

Oz

I'm not sure why you'd call me a shiela because I'm a male. I'm only supportive of slang used in the correct context, with the right heart.

 

[Precisely]

Is it a misunderstanding of God's holiness to have a hard time believing he can both be good and torture someone infinitely?

Yes?

God's infinite holiness combined with God's justice IS the entire doctrine of hell. You are under the assumption, like I said, that the justice system on earth is the means by which God also judges. That thinking is just objectively wrong on a logical and biblical level. An "eye for an eye?" If you honestly thought that is the motto of Almighty God when people sin against Him, you would HAVE to believe in an infinite hell. An eye for eye, right? Well since people sin against an INFINITELY worthy and holy and good God, the punishment one must receive would be that of equal value, which would be an infinite punishment. Even with your earthly thinking, your logic must end up concluding the existence of an eternal hell regardless. How much more would we have to conclude an eternal hell if we realize His ways are not our ways?

Also, you are under the assumption that sin ceases once you get to hell. Sin doesn't stop, it INCREASES. People in hell are not trying to repent to God, they are shaking their fist and gnashing their teeth at Him. The eternality of sin is another reason for the eternality of judgment/hell.

 

[Blessedj01]

Man's capacity for evil is infinite, not God's. God cannot be evil.

 

[Armistead14]

Amen! That's why I was asking.

(And now that I feel reassured that I am only half a quack, I started a thread over in GT about this topic. We'll see how it goes, I guess. )



That is certainly the definition for man.

So those who do not believe in eternal torment say, "this clearly isn't just", and those who do believe in eternal torment say, "this must be just...but we can't see how".

But what if God's definition of justice is not 'an eye for an eye'? I mean, none of us should be surprised to find out that His ways are actually not our ways.

And the more I look into it, the more different God's justice looks from our own. Not just different in degree or knowledge but qualitatively different from what we call justice.

Here's the verses I started with back on page 75:

"This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of his oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the alien, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place." (Jeremiah 22:3)

“This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’" (Zechariah 7:9-10)

“This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘Administer true justice; show mercy and compassion to one another. Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the alien or the poor. In your hearts do not think evil of each other.’" (Zechariah 7:9-10)

God's version of showing 'justice' looks suspiciously similar to our version of showing 'kindness'.

What do you think?

They're many issues that evolve biblically, such as justice or suffering. It was common for prophets/scribes to come up with solutions that previous prophets didn't answer. This can be confusing.

Let's take suffering and later compare it with justice. Through the early OT, we are taught suffering is the result of turning from God into sin, that if we come out of sin, God ends the suffering. Basically a trade of righeousness to avoid suffering. The early OT is clear, if you live right, there will be no suffering. Sin was defined by a strict codes of laws, so men knew right or wrong. But this wasn't reality, this didn't answer the deeper problem as often righteous people still suffered. This early belief also resulted in the "curse" doctrine that haunts us today. We know often bad things happen to Christains for no reason, but people will assume they must've done something terrible to deserve suffering, that some sin is cursing them. The innocent person has no out. He is frowned or judged by others for no reason. This is common is more fundy denominations, like the WOF movement that often teaches if God is not healing you, you must be doing something wrong. How cruel. So later prophets had to deal with the reality that righteous men suffer and the bible evolved into the principle many hold to today, that suffering is the result of man doing mean things in a fallen world. We start seeing themes in the OT on how men treat each other, good or bad. That also didn't totally answer the question, because of often natural suffering, disasters, etc., so the bible evolved into suffering can happen for no reason, don't question God, as in the case of Job. In the NT suffering evolved more towards it's redemptive natures.

Not to get off topic with that, but compare the process of biblical justice the same way and see where you get. Compare justice and suffering as both themes evolved almost the same way through the bible. It's complex, but I think gives us much insight to understand both.

However, In the end you will hear Christians make the same statements when they can't explain the seemingly injustice of eternal hell....They will say "Don't question God's justice" That's what you have to do when men's fixed doctrines conflict with reason and logic. Rather than correcting the doctrine, we shed God given reason and logic.

For me, if we can't understand God's justice, how can we be just? Just compare when the church embraced eternal torture as a whole in about the 4th century. They believed if a just God could torture, then they would be just to torture humans on earth in God's name and the church entered into a period of cruelty at the highest level for several hundred years. It was also a good reason to deliver the gospel by the sword, so millions of people were killed. That's why we need to know the justice of God correctly, rather than just saying God's justice is beyond our understanding.

In church history often conflicting themes arise, such as ET, annihiliation, universal salvation, OSAS vs NOSAS, etc.. What we often fail to see in our doctrines is the political influence that shaped many of them. Religion and politics always seek the masses. Any reasonable person studying church history can see how doctrines changed and evolved. We will say doctrine evolved as the church came to more knowledge as it grew, but it's clear doctrine often evolved based on what better controlled the masses.

The church often struggled in areas the scripture seemed to promote two points of views. Something had to be the determining factor, most often rather than more study and debate, men leaned to what doctrine would best control the masses and justice became injustice. So a lil word change here, a lil addition here, and often total redefinition of the original meaning.

Ending, I'm getting long, I think we have the guide inside us, we know what is just, what is loving, fair and right, we are made in God's image, he has put these things in our hearts. We should apply those principles when we run into two opposing views and with proper study they should lead us to the truth.

 

[rockytopva]

Why an eternity in hell?

Because allowing sin into heaven would destroy it.

 

[OzSpen]

It's easy to see others' pet doctrines and how they are poorly grounded in the bible, but not as easy to see one's own. Sometimes we'll exchange one doctrine for another, but most of the time we interpret anything and everything in light of what we already (like to) believe.

The definition of justice... perhaps it's as easy as "an eye for an eye."

Are you also preaching to yourself?

Oz

 

[OzSpen]

I'm not sure why you'd call me a shiela because I'm a male. I'm only supportive of slang used in the correct context, with the right heart.

Oops! Then I'd need to call you a bloke in my Aussie slang lingo.

However, immigrants who come to Australia sure find some of our slang difficult to get to know and use. However, it's part of our culture.

What are the slang terms unique to NZ?

Oz

 

[seeingeyes]

Are you also preaching to yourself?

Oz

No, he was preaching to me because I asked him to.

 

[OzSpen]

Why an eternity in hell?

Because allowing sin into heaven would destroy it.

It's also taught in Scripture. I have a high view of Scripture and believe what the Scriptures teach about hell and judgment.

Sincerely, Oz

 

[createdtoworship]

I discuss justice all the time.

I think the question is, can failed finite human beings effected by 1000's of human factors, culture, etc., be judged by a perfect infinite standard.

Again, if sin equals eternal torture and Christ made equal payment for that sin, he would have to be eternally tortured.

Where sin abounded, did not grace more abound?

if grace abounded much more everyone would be saved including the wicked. Grace doesn't about that much. We are still commanded to repent over a hundred times in the Bible. Grace abounds only for those of faith. Even still we are commanded to repent.

 

[OzSpen]

No, he was preaching to me because I asked him to.

But he also should be preaching such to himself - was my point.

Oz

 

[seeingeyes]

But he also should be preaching such to himself - was my point.

Oz

Why? I asked for his opinion, and he gave it to me. Not sure why you are upset about that...