Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[sawdust]

I'm trying to be clear for the sake of accuracy.

Unfortunately too often it comes across as a "I'm right, your wrong" attitude. Maybe you need to let people be who they are, using their language to express themselves just a wee bit more.

The problem was I was expressing truth from the perspective of what God has done in Christ (ie. forgiveness of sin). You expressed truth from the perspective of how we receive that forgiveness. We end up at the same place. Your constant back and forth is what ends up going down rabbit holes. People don't always need your constant correction.

 

[Clare73]

Unfortunately too often it comes across as a "I'm right, your wrong" attitude. Maybe you need to let people be who they are, using their language to express themselves just a wee bit more.
The problem was I was expressing truth from the perspective of what God has done in Christ (ie. forgiveness of sin). You expressed truth from the perspective of how we receive that forgiveness. We end up at the same place. Your constant back and forth is what ends up going down rabbit holes. People don't always need your constant correction.

Perhaps clarity is beneficial to silent readers who may not be adequately clear on the matter.

Can we do it for them?

 

[Saint Steven]

I should add that the work will probably be individualized like when he walked the earth.

I should add that I don't see it as "punishment" in the punitive sense. The experience might be "punishing" (difficult to bear) but in the sense of what a doctor would do to help his patient. Reconstructive surgery is no fun, but the results are worth it. Restorative, though difficult.

cc: @public hermit

 

[sawdust]

Perhaps clarity is beneficial to lurking readers who may not be adequately clear on the matter.

Can we do it for them?

If people need clarity about what is said, they can ask questions. As far as I am concerned you didn't clarify anything, you simply stated the same thing I said from a different perspective which in turn, only confused things.

 

[Clare73]

In terms of universal salvation, the "work" has already been done. The work of the cross was sufficient. So, basically everyone is saved, we just need to be readied to enter. (or exit the age, is another way to look at it) Every knee will bow and every tongue joyfully acknowledge that Jesus is Lord.
My explanation was very simplified. I think there will be a lot of layers in what actually happens. The books will be opened, and accounts settled.
Anyone not found in the book of life will need special attention.

So those not in the Book of Life will have life anyway. . .now what's wrong with that picture?
Poor God. . .can't get it straight.

Although I often think that
the "religious" folks will need MORE work than the non-religious.

That is so trite. . .and self-justifying (Luke 10:29).

As Jesus told the religious folks of his day, The prostitutes and tax collectors (traitors) are entering the kingdom before you.

 

[Clare73]

Unfortunately too often it comes across as a "I'm right, your wrong" attitude. Maybe you need to let people be who they are, using their language to express themselves just a wee bit more.

And maybe not. . .

The problem was I was expressing truth from the perspective of what God has done in Christ (ie. forgiveness of sin). You expressed truth from the perspective of how we receive that forgiveness. We end up at the same place. Your constant back and forth is what ends up going down rabbit holes. People don't always need your constant correction.

If people need clarity about what is said, they can ask questions. As far as I am concerned
you didn't clarify anything, you simply stated the same thing I said from a different perspective which in turn, only confused things.

Are you sure about that?

Let's do a little exercise in pedagogy:

You say: The problem was I was expressing truth from the perspective of what God has done in Christ (ie. forgiveness of sin).

You say: The sins of unbelievers are forgiven as much as believers sins. He is "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world", not just the sin of believers.

You say: Unbelievers never know forgiveness because they reject Christ where all forgiveness resides. . .(therefore, they go to Gehenna)

You say: You expressed truth from the perspective of how we receive that forgiveness.
We end up at the same place.
Your constant back and forth is what ends up going down rabbit holes.
People don't always need your constant correction.

And this is where I come in. . .for the sake of the silent readers.

You have just maintained that
Christ on the cross paid for the sin of unbelievers,
which are then paid for a second time in Gehenna,
by those same unbelievers.

You have just made God unjust in requiring double payment for the same sin,
or else maintained that Christ's payment was insufficient and required additional payment to complete it,
either way, thereby grievously polluting the gospel.

And all the time, thinking that we ended up in the same place.

Now where do you think that leaves the silent reader?
With the pure gospel, or with a polluted gospel?
And how do you think Paul would react to your gospel? (See Galatians 1:6-9).

Correction may not always be needed, but if is often needed.

Inaccuracy can have serious gospel-polluting consequences.

So I think I'll just keep on keepin' on. . .doin' it the best way I know how.

 

[Clare73]

If people need clarity about what is said, they can ask questions.

And if they don't know they are misunderstanding it, as you don't, how would they ask questions?

As far as I am concerned you didn't clarify anything, you simply stated the same thing I said from a different perspective which in turn, only confused things.

Are you sure about that?

 

[Hmm]

I should add that I don't see it as "punishment" in the punitive sense. The experience might be "punishing" (difficult to bear) but in the sense of what a doctor would do to help his patient. Reconstructive surgery is no fun, but the results are worth it. Restorative, though difficult.

cc: @public hermit

I agree. I think correction or education is a more accurate word to describe what's going on. I don't speak ancient Greek but "kolasis" which is usually translated a "punishment" actually means something more like pruning.

As you say, correction is punishing in the sense that it's not pleasant and in the loss of liberty while you're being corrected.

 

[Andrewn]

I increasing appreciate the view of Orthodoxy. There are clearly many insights such as about the Harrowing of Hell that we've completely lost sight of in all the wildly divergent Protestant traditions.

It's easy to order Orthodox books from St Vladimir's Seminary Press

SVS Press & Bookstore

If they don't deliver in Britain, perhaps many of their titles are available through Amazon, Christian Book Distributors, and others.

There are also excellent Protestant writers such as Philip Melanchthon, John Wesley, CS Lewis, NT Wright, etc.

 

[Hmm]

It's easy to order Orthodox books from St Vladimir's Seminary Press

SVS Press & Bookstore

If they don't deliver in Britain, perhaps many of their titles are available through Amazon, Christian Book Distributors, and others.

There are also excellent Protestant writers such as Philip Melanchthon, John Wesley, CS Lewis, NT Wright, etc.

That's informative, thanks.

I've read quite a bit of NT Wright and I'm impressed by his views on the New Perspective of Paul but I read an article of his recently on Christian universalism and it was just a rehash if the usual strawman arguments that we see here so I've lost a lot of respect for his judgement outside of his area of expertise.

I'm not sure what to think of CS Lewis. He's very quotable but I find his famous image of the doors of hell being locked on the inside pretty nonsensical unless accompanied by a belief in UR. If it was true, who wouldn't open it eventually?

I'm not having a go at the Protestants btw. I remain a reluctant one myself because I value the freedom of thought it embraces and it is my tradition after all and I know some great people in the church but I can't trust anything it says now without first looking at what Catholicism, Orthodox and the early church also has to say.

Happy Easter to you and ALL here!

 

[Andrewn]

I've read quite a bit of NT Wright and I'm impressed by his views on the New Perspective of Paul but I read an article of his recently on Christian universalism and it was just a rehash if the usual strawman arguments that we see here so I've lost a lot of respect for his judgement outside of his area of expertise.

I didn't read any articles by him about UR but he has that interesting belief that evil people change into animal souls. They become less human and perhaps may be annihilated like animals. These are my words, according to my understanding of what he said in some videos.

I'm not sure what to think of CS Lewis. He's very quotable but I find his famous image of the doors of hell being locked on the inside pretty nonsensical unless accompanied by a belief in UR. If it was true, who wouldn't open it eventually?

Yes, I expressed a similar critique in posts #129 and #169. There can be many views of how Hades and the LoF work. We just don't know. As a scientist, I like speculation. One may speculate freely so long he knows the difference between what is biblical and what is extra-biblical.

I'm not having a go at the Protestants btw. I remain a reluctant one myself because I value the freedom of thought it embraces and it is my tradition after all and I know some great people in the church but I can't trust anything it says now without first looking at what Catholicism, Orthodox and the early church also has to say.

I attend Protestant churches, myself, and completely understand what you say about freedom of conscience. Studying Orthodox and Catholic theology is different from submitting to their rituals.

Happy Easter to you and ALL here!

Happy Resurrection Day to you, too.

 

[Hmm]

I didn't read any articles by him about UR but he has that interesting belief that evil people change into animal souls. They become less human and perhaps may be annihilated like animals. These are my words, according to my understanding of what he said in some videos.

Yes, I think he believes that if you continually reject God despite all He does to woo you, you are effectively saying that you don't want to be human, which entails carrying the divine image and reflecting that out to the world, anymore. And so you eventually become "unhuman" which God respects. That seems a very unlikely conclusion to me because I don't think we can change the nature that God has given us by anything we do.

I'm going to be spending today in my fiancée's garden because she has Covid atm so I hope it's a Bright (and Warm) Sunday!

 

[Clare73]

I agree. I think correction or education is a more accurate word to describe what's going on. I don't speak ancient Greek but "kolasis" which is usually translated a "punishment" actually means something more like pruning.

However, root words (kolos) do not always indicate the current usage of a word, which have a way of morphing over time into a broader usage, as in the word kolasis.

As you say, correction is punishing in the sense that it's not pleasant
and in the loss of liberty while you're being corrected.

Kolasis [akin to kolazo (to curtail, prune, dock--from kolos = docked); then to check, restrain, punish]
means punishment and is used only twice in the NT: Matthew 25:46; 1 John 4:18.

In 1 John 4:18, "Fear has punishment (torment--kolasis) [i.e., fear is punishing--kolasis] and
he who fears is not perfect in love."
The punishment there is that sense of sin which induces a servile fear, which
is a docking, curtailing, pruning of perfect love.
Fear docks, curtails, restrains (punishes) the enjoyment of love.

In Matthew 25:46, "eternal punishment" would be an unending restraining/curtailing imprisonment
(as in 1 Peter 3:19, 2 Peter 2:4, 2 Peter 2:9; Jude 6)--not just a pruning, and in agreement with the multitude of Scriptures where Jesus presents unending punishment in Gehenna (Mark 9:43, 45, 47-48;
Matthew 5:22, 12:31, 13:30, 18:8-9, 25:41, 46; Luke 16:24).

 

[hedrick]

I've read quite a bit of NT Wright and I'm impressed by his views on the New Perspective of Paul but I read an article of his recently on Christian universalism and it was just a rehash if the usual strawman arguments that we see here so I've lost a lot of respect for his judgement outside of his area of expertise.

I'm not sure what to think of CS Lewis. He's very quotable but I find his famous image of the doors of hell being locked on the inside pretty nonsensical unless accompanied by a belief in UR. If it was true, who wouldn't open it eventually?

Both of these views are sensible, but they don't seem to match the descriptions in the NT. In them, God puts people into hell. Maybe it's temporary. Maybe it's destruction rather than torment. But I don't see any suggestion that people choose it or are in hell because they refuse to come out.

Wright's idea could fit Jesus' teachings if you think Jesus is speaking of destruction. Still, I think his wording compared to the NT texts looks like a rationalization.

 

[sawdust]

You have just maintained that
Christ on the cross paid for the sin of unbelievers,
which are then paid for a second time in Gehenna,
by those same unbelievers.

And if by Gehenna you mean the lake of fire? Then again you have not heard what I said. People go to hell because they reject Christ which is evil. Sin is derived from evil, they are not the same thing (Jam.1:14&15). The wages of sin is death, not the lake of fire. People are not "paying for their sin" in hell. Sin is no longer the issue. What God looks for is how one responds to the Son not what sins you have committed and checking them off against a list to see if they are covered by the Cross. All sins are covered by the Cross including the sins of unbelievers. Even if no-one believed in Christ, all sins would still be paid for. It's an unalterable fact. If it were not so, The Lord would have no justification in releasing the unbelievers from death and hades. (Rev.20:13) Christ holds the keys (Rev.1:18) because He won the victory over death. He did not die for His own rejection, the rejection of truth which, is evil, He died for sin. Learn the difference then you might be in a position to correct me.

 

[sawdust]

And if they don't know they are misunderstanding it, as you don't, how would they ask questions?

Are you sure about that?

Really? Strewth! LOL

I am not misunderstanding myself Clare. I know exactly what I'm saying and why I'm saying it.
I'm very sure you're confusing what I'm saying because I had to correct your misunderstanding of what I said in my last post.

 

[Mark Quayle]

And maybe not. . .


Are you sure about that?

Let's do a little exercise in pedagogy:

You say: The problem was I was expressing truth from the perspective of what God has done in Christ (ie. forgiveness of sin).

You say: The sins of unbelievers are forgiven as much as believers sins. He is "the Lamb who takes away the sin of the world", not just the sin of believers.

You say: Unbelievers never know forgiveness because they reject Christ where all forgiveness resides. . .(therefore, they go to Gehenna)

You say: You expressed truth from the perspective of how we receive that forgiveness.
We end up at the same place.
Your constant back and forth is what ends up going down rabbit holes.
People don't always need your constant correction.

And this is where I come in. . .for the sake of the silent readers.

You have just maintained that
Christ on the cross paid for the sin of unbelievers,
which are then paid for a second time in Gehenna,
by those same unbelievers.

You have just made God unjust in requiring double payment for the same sin,
or else maintained that Christ's payment was insufficient and required additional payment to complete it,
either way, thereby grievously polluting the gospel.

And all the time, thinking that we ended up in the same place.

Now where do you think that leaves the silent reader?
With the pure gospel, or with a polluted gospel?
And how do you think Paul would react to your gospel? (See Galatians 1:6-9).

Correction may not always be needed, but if is often needed.

Inaccuracy can have serious gospel-polluting consequences.

So I think I'll just keep on keepin' on. . .doin' it the best way I know how.

And if by Gehenna you mean the lake of fire? Then again you have not heard what I said. People go to hell because they reject Christ which is evil. Sin is derived from evil, they are not the same thing (Jam.1:14&15). The wages of sin is death, not the lake of fire. People are not "paying for their sin" in hell. Sin is no longer the issue. What God looks for is how one responds to the Son not what sins you have committed and checking them off against a list to see if they are covered by the Cross. All sins are covered by the Cross including the sins of unbelievers. Even if no-one believed in Christ, all sins would still be paid for. It's an unalterable fact. If it were not so, The Lord would have no justification in releasing the unbelievers from death and hades. (Rev.20:13) Christ holds the keys (Rev.1:18) because He won the victory over death. He did not die for His own rejection, the rejection of truth which, is evil, He died for sin. Learn the difference then you might be in a position to correct me.

Sawdust, do you consider repentance unnecessary for forgiveness of sin?

 

[Clare73]

And if they don't know they are misunderstanding it, as you don't, how would they ask questions?

Really? Strewth! LOL

I am not misunderstanding myself Clare. I know exactly what I'm saying and why I'm saying it.

It is not yourself you are misunderstanding, it is the gospel which you do not realize that you are misunderstanding.

I'm very sure you're confusing what I'm saying because I had to correct your misunderstanding of what I said in my last post.

And if by Gehenna you mean the lake of fire? Then again you have not heard what I said. People go to hell because they reject Christ which is evil.
Sin is derived from evil, they are not the same thing (Jam.1:14&15).

1) The distinction between evil desires giving birth to sin has nothing to do with rejection of Christ and unforgiveness of sin.

2) The sea, death and Hades are all holding places for the dead until the final judgment.
They are all thrown into the Lake of Fire along with those whose names were not found written in the Book of Life (Revelation 20:13-15); i.e., the rejectors of Christ.

3) Salvation = forgiveness (remission) of sin, whereby God declares one in right standing with his justice; i.e., "not guilty."

The wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23), not the lake of fire.

Physical death (the wages of sin) refers to natural life, sin and time. . .while
Gehenna refers to eternity, spiritual life, and unbelief.
The lake of fire is the second death (Revelation 20:14); i.e., eternal spiritual death for unbelievers, those who rejected Christ.

Your separation/distinction between rejection of Christ and unforgiveness (thereby permitting forgiveness of Christ's rejectors)
is a contra-Biblical distinction without a Biblical difference.

In the NT, rejection of Christ is not separate from but the same as unforgiveness,
because the NT everywhere teaches that forgiveness of sin = salvation, which is only by faith in Christ.
In the NT, there is absolutely no forgiveness of sin = salvation apart from faith in Christ.
Therefore, the sin of unbelievers, by NT definition, cannot be forgiven.

You do not know that you are misunderstanding the NT gospel, that your understanding is contra-NT.

.

 

[sawdust]

Sawdust, do you consider repentance unnecessary for forgiveness of sin?

If you want to receive forgiveness, absolutely. You can't know forgiveness unless you are in a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. It is why unbelievers will never know the forgiveness that is in Christ because they reject Him. It is the ultimate evil from which all sin is derived.

 

[Der Alte]

I agree. I think correction or education is a more accurate word to describe what's going on. I don't speak ancient Greek but "kolasis" which is usually translated a "punishment" actually means something more like pruning.
As you say, correction is punishing in the sense that it's not pleasant and in the loss of liberty while you're being corrected.

What is your source for "kolasis means pruning?"
"Kolasis" the Greek word correctly translated "punishment" Matt 25:46 occurs one other time in the NT. 1 John 4:18 where it is correctly translated "torment."

1 John 4:18
(18) There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear hath torment.[kolasis] He that feareth is not made perfect in love.​

The Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible quoted. Who better than the native Greek speaking scholars who translated the EOB know the correct translation of the Greek NT?

EOB Matthew 25:46 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” ​

Note 1 Jn 4:18 the one who has kolasis is not made perfect i.e. NOT corrected.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment. But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love. ​

Link to EOB http://fortsmithorthodox.org/NEW TESTAMENT.pdf

​