Divine punishment? Is it needed?

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

Halbhh said:
You notice that Peter 'stood condemned'

Would that not be because of the Judaizing delegation from Jerusalem who required circumcision (works) for salvation, with whom in fear (Galatians 2:12) Peter allied upon their arrival, therefore falling from grace only for salvation and into works for salvation, thereby anathematizing (eternally condemning) himself (Galatians 1:9)?

in Galatians chapter 2 for a time

For a very short time, for Peter's error and its correction by Paul all occurred at the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15).

-- it's so dramatic: he was not going to be able to enter heaven(!)....

And there you have the seriousness of adding works (circumcision) as necessary for salvation,
in effect denying the gospel of grace alone for salvation.
To deny the gospel is to be eternally condemned.

-- while he was refusing to eat with gentile Christians that had not been physically circumcized, for a time. But we realize in Acts that his error was reversed later. So, for a time, Peter was 'condemned', but then later, restored.

His error was reversed by Paul at the time and place it occurred, at the Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15), the time frame of Peter's error being very short.

That perfectly fits 1rst John chapter 1, where we are to confess sins we do as we go along, and must do so to be cleansed of them. 1 John 1 NIV

So, as a Christian, you must at times confess sins to God, to be cleansed and restored. 1 John 1 NIV

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

Halbhh said:
Now, the 'eternal punishment' in the 'second death' is to 'perish' where
God will 'destroy body and soul'

Where "destroy" (apollumi) means to ruin, kill, waste, loss of well-being--not to annihilate,
as seen in its usage in Matthew 2:13, 8:25, 9:17, 22:7, 26:8, 52, 27:20; Luke 5:37, 15:4, 6:24;
John 6:27, 1 Peter 1:7.

(for humans that perish there, unlike the fallen angels who are already immortal) -- that's 'eternal' in that the 'second death' is an irreversible cessation of existence. But above, the other main question is about for those that need cleansing, but who can be saved, and the question of how they are cleansed, ala purgatory.

To me 'punishment' makes me think of suffering that helps us.

viz: Hebrews 12:6 For the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises every son He receives."

Suffering that aids us to repent (like the prodigal). 2 Corinthians 7:10 Godly sorrow brings repentance that leads to salvation without regret, but worldly sorrow brings death.

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

Maria Billingsley said:
He created emotions so it's hard to say if He is subject to them or if its within His eternal Character. Anything that goes against His Character is a sin. Wrath is the consequence.

Christian theology is that he is not because he is immutable.

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

Jamdoc said:
It's almost like.. similar to Jesus taking on all mankind's sins, each man who rejects Christ takes on all mankind's sins, and so they're punished as if they did every sin any person has ever done.
But.. unlike Christ, there's no redemption in anyone else doing that. Only condemnation.
But.. that doesn't fit scripture so it's not true.
But I don't understand how else if you're guilty of one you're guilty of all.
That's on me and my own shortcomings of understanding obviously.

That was in relation to observance of the Decalogue: The Law; i.e. the one code.

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

public hermit said:
I think statements about divine anger are anthropomorphic. I doubt God is experiencing the fluctuations of emotion as we are, and subject to them like we are. That doesn't mean God accepts evil as if it were good, but I doubt God is subject to reacting to evil as if God didn't know it was coming. God is bringing about the good God intended. My question is,
how would eternal punishment be good?

It is good in the sense that it makes his mercy even more magnificent, which is the purpose the NT indicates. (Romans 9:23)

Ours is to accept and agree with NT teaching over our own notions.

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

Mink61 said:
Why do you doubt this? After all...aren't we created in HIS 'image'? Doesn't God get angry? Don't WE get angry?

Seriously, where do you think that *we* got emotion from?

Would that apply to sin also, since all comes from God?
Seems everything about us does not come from God.

We may not have it to the same degree that God has it, but ours is different from God's. God said several times in the OT that He's a "jealous" God. But there's a HUGE difference between human jealousy and divine jealousy.

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

Mink61 said:
YES! I have no idea why SOME people (yes, Christians too) think that God has NO emotions. They seem to think that IF, and I mean IF God has ANY human emotions, that He's "lesser" than...Meanwhile, WHERE did all this "emotion" and "creating us in HIS 'image'" come from?
Where in the world did we get our emotions from in the first place? I
I'm not saying that we're on the same level as God. But that we WERE created in HIS IMAGE. While we have the capacity to love, hate, be jealous, cry, forgive...

...it's not NEARLY to the extent that God has.

Created in his image as spirit beings, in righteousness, holiness and knowledge of him (Ephesians 4:24; Colossians 3:10)

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

Oleaster said:
Is divine punishment a release valve for divine wrath?

No. From a Catholic perspective, there is no such thing as literal divine wrath. As you have been saying within this thread, we agree that wrath is a human emotional state, while one of God’s attributes (His impassibility) precludes Him from experiencing anything like human emotion. Anyone interested in the Catholic view of God’s impassibility, please read here: Aquinas on Divine Impassibility

We Catholics generally understand anthropomorphic language with respect to the Godhead as a feeble attempt to convey divine mysteries to human understanding. For instance, we pray in the creed that Christ is “seated at the right hand of the Father,” but we do not mean that Christ is literally sitting at the Father’s right hand, because (a) God is a spirit without hands, and (b) an eternal sitting would be a weariness of the Lord’s hindquarters. Whenever we encounter expressions of “divine wrath” in scripture, we usually recognize these as a merely human manner of conveying an inexpressible mystery. The “punishment” that we sinners experience in life (and death) because of sin seems or feels like “divine wrath” to us. God, however, is completely, infinitely at peace.

The same is true of divine punishment. Catholic teaching recognizes two types of punishment for sin, temporal and eternal. As the catechism frames it, “these two punishments must not be conceived of as a kind of vengeance inflicted by God from without, but as following from the very nature of sin” (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1472). In the Catholic view, acts have consequences. It’s that simple. Every thought, feeling, word, or deed yields consequences in the life of the soul. Each soul is born free and is constantly shaping itself and its destiny as it either freely cooperates with God’s grace or freely refuses to cooperate.

As you probably know, Protestant soteriology posits more of an “either / or” scenario. Either salvation is 100% grace, or it is 100% man’s work, or perhaps (according to some Protestants) we poor benighted Catholics think that salvation is a 50/50 joint venture between God and man. This tension in Protestantism is reflected in the antagonism between Calvinism and Arminianism, both of which are supportable from scripture. The Calvinist has his proof texts. The Arminian has his. Neither can convince the other.

It might be said that we Catholics accept both positions. For us, salvation is “both / and” rather than “either / or,” but not 50/50. Salvation = 100% God’s grace + 100% man’s cooperation, a divine mystery transcending human reason, just as Christ = 100% God + 100% man. It is inconceivable to the ungraced mind how Christ could have two natures (both divine and human), or two wills (both divine and human), or how salvation could require all of God’s initiative and all of man’s response. For us, faith simply trusts where reason falters.

'Tis not about reason, 'tis about NT revelation.

Man's response is involved only in sanctification through obedience in the Holy Spirit. (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19)
Man's response is not involved in salvation, which is God's work. . .and God alone!. . .that no man have anything about which he could boast (Romans 4:2; Ephesians 2:9; 1 Corinthians 1:29).

Does punishment restore God's honor?

Yes. From a Catholic perspective, punishment restores God’s honor where God’s honor is understood as equivalent to His justice, especially in relation to humankind and the rest of creation. Of course, God’s honor considered in and of itself can be neither diminished nor restored. It is a property innate to God. But in the formula of Anselm, honor is defined as “rendering what is due to Whom it is due,” which is also the Catholic definition of justice.

Now, obedience is the thing that is due to God - obedience at all times and in all things. Man’s obedience establishes a sort of balance in the universe, where everything is as it should be. Sin, the failure of man to render to God His due, upsets that balance. Temporal punishment resulting from sin helps reestablish the balance.

Consider the sin of fornication. A single act of this can produce a surprisingly great variety of unhappy results. For my purposes, I will choose a fornicator’s contraction of a venereal disease. Here, the “punishment” (contraction of disease) is but a natural consequence of the sin, probably what Saint Paul describes as “the due penalty for their perversity” (Rm 1:27). Even if the newly diseased fornicator fails to see the disease as divine punishment, it is nevertheless a kind of divine mercy. If the fornicator has any sense of moral responsibility, he or she will severely curtail his or her lust for fornication, knowing that there is now the possibility of spreading this disease. Or maybe the fornicator has no regard for others and continues to fornicate and spread disease. Well, at some point, at least a few fornicators who become infected must surely begin to restrain their activities. Hence, venereal disease, this “punishment” for fornication, has a way of restraining sin in the population. If the disease is actually recognized as a divine mercy, then it can lead to conversion and thankfulness, greatly honoring or glorifying God.

Eternal punishment, in contrast to the temporal, serves no clear purpose, as far as I have heard. It is simply the ultimate result of a long string of bad decisions on the part of individuals. Some have said that the sight of sinners suffering in hell will serve to magnify the praise of God’s mercy among His saints in heaven, but this seems doubtful. However, eternal punishment in hell can be seen as infinitely more merciful than utter destruction of a soul.

Think of it this way. God is complete in Himself, infinitely perfect, having no need to create anyone or anything. He is also love. Love itself. Father loving the Son, Son loving the Father, Spirit being the love that flows between Father and Son. This infinitely perfect love by His very nature spontaneously flows outwards into infinity and, because He wants to share His wonderful self-experience, intends to create a human soul, an Adam. My first choice, if I were God, would be to self-replicate. I am perfect after all. If one of me is perfectly awesome (or three of me), then surely two of me (or six of me) would be even more perfectly awesome!

The trouble with self-replication is bound up with the one thing that God cannot do. God cannot deny Himself. Well, He is infinite, and there can only be one infinity, as infinity by definition is literally everything. God cannot self-replicate.

What He can do, however, is manifest Himself in infinite variety. That is why we experience a hierarchical universe with everything from the vastness of the sun, moon, and stars, to the tiny single-celled organism and subatomic particle. The universe is God’s expression of infinite self-reflection.

If God is not a tyrant (and we believe that He is not), then He would probably be considerate enough to ask His creature’s opinion about being created. You know, sort of, “Hey, Adam. I’m thinking of creating a hierarchical universe with you as man on the top rung of the visible ladder, but I’m going to allow all human souls to act freely, and that freedom is going to result in loads of sin and death and a whole lot of misery, especially for Me personally in the life of my Son. Anyway, I wanted to ask if you’d like to participate in my creation. It could turn out badly for you if you make poor decisions, but it could also turn out really great if you accept My redemption, which I’m going to freely offer you and everyone.” That’s a sweet idea, but also impossible. In order to have that or any conversation with Adam, God has to go ahead and create Adam.

Yet, we can view our lives here as God’s attempt to have just such a conversation with us. In fact, that’s kind of what we Christians believe life is. Life is God speaking to and with us, and our shutting him out or either hearing and responding positively. God is saying, “I have today set before you life and good, death and evil. If you obey the commandments of the Lord, your God, which I am giving you today, loving the Lord, your God, and walking in his ways, and keeping his commandments, statutes and ordinances, you will live” (Dt 30:15-16). But He also declares Himself “a consuming fire” (Heb 12:29). Love is an all-consuming fire. Either we burn in and with Him, or we experience Him as a burning hell.

This is more merciful than utter destruction because, as Aquinas demonstrates, existence is better than nonexistence. We had to begin to exist in order for God to converse with us. If we reject what He says, we might think it would be more merciful for Him to annihilate us than to punish us forever, but that’s because we don’t have a proper understanding of what annihilation truly means. Also, it is impossible for God to radically destroy anything that He has brought into existence, because anything that exists does so only by virtue of participation in Him. “In him we live and move and have our being” (Acts 17:28). He cannot deny Himself, so nothing in Him will be destroyed. Transformed, yes. Destroyed, no.

Are there any better ideas out there of what punishment is or does?

In my opinion, no. There are just alternate ways of viewing the same balancing act. One of my favorite renditions is found in The Great Divorce by C.S. Lewis. In that book, everyone in hell is there by their own choice. They are allowed to take excursions to the outskirts of heaven, but most never bother. They’re simply not interested. Lewis describes the bus ride of a few curious souls and how, upon arrival, they all carry on the same way up there as they had down below; thus, none can be convinced to enter heaven. The reader comes away with the impression that heaven is always open to all souls for all time, and it is simply the hardheartedness of souls that shuts them out. It's a short book. You can listen on YouTube set to high speed and get through pretty quickly HERE.

Is divine punishment necessary?

Yes.

If so, why?

Law. Cause and effect.

See also:
St. Anselm on Seeking Satisfaction and Mercy
Does God Punish Us for Our Sins?
Eternal Punishment

bling · Apr 14, 2022

public hermit said:
I am curious of any doctrines about divine punishment, specifically as related to the afterlife, but in general, too.

I'll throw out a couple.

Anselm: Anselm argues the sin is not only disobedience, but it also dishonors God. Sin, therefore, incurs a double debt (disobedience and dishonor) that one must repay or for which one must be punished. He explains why punishment is needed. Punishment subjects the human creature, thereby putting them back in their place, which restores God's honor. So, punishment restores God's honor.

Calvin: Calvin, ever the lawyer, said sin makes us criminals, essentially. Criminals must be punished. Sin incurs divine wrath, therefore, God must punish us. Of course, God punishes Jesus in our place so we don't have to be punished. He, too, will talk about punishment putting us back in our proper place.

Is that what divine punishment does? Is it a release valve for divine wrath? Does punishment restore God's honor? Are there any better ideas out there of what punishment is or does? Is divine punishment necessary? If so, why?

(The poll specifically concerns unrepentant sin at death so we can avoid wasting time getting to the point)

Psychologists and I make a distinction between “discipline” and “punishment”. The Greek word can be translated either way and the same word can be used for educate and train. Negative disciplining is mostly translated punishment, but do you see a difference with the meanings of punishment and discipline?

Following the instruction of psychologist: I should never punish my children, but do discipline my children.

Can you be a good parent and not negatively discipline you children if you have the opportunity?

Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Ming vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great, great, grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair discipline? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the Ming vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Ming vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

Would there be a benefit to God’s other children, if those who refuse the just disciplining to be punished after their death for at least a while?

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

kvw said:
I go by what Jesus states in several of His encounters in the Gospels with Religious leaders. Their (the religious leaders) main focus was on the law and had forgotten
the spirit of the law; love, compassion, kindness, charity etc.

Actually, in 2 Corinthians 3:6, there is no "spirit of the law," nor "letter of the law."

There is only the Holy Spirit, and the letter (which is the law, the written code) and which is not Scripture in general.
And it's not about counterfeit obedience vs. genuine obedience.
It's about grace vs. law, faith vs. works, New Covenant vs. Old Covenant.

The letter (law) kills because it curses all those who rely on it (Galatians 3:10), because it must be kept perfectly to make one righteous before God, no one can do that, so it condemns everyone to death--the law kills.
That's life under the Old Covenant, righteousness by works, which is impossible = condemnation.

Under the New Covenant we are not made righteous by law keeping, but by the new birth of the Holy Spirit where, through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, we are justified--declared "not guilty"
by God, made right with his justice, reconciled to him, and Jesus' own righteousness is reckoned, accounted, imputed to us.
That's life under the New Covenant, righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ = salvation.

The "letter" vs. the "spirit" has nothing to do with wrong focus vs. right focus, and everything to do with law vs. grace.

Jesus told them they would be punished the most severely. Jesus message today is the same. If you lack love and compassion for others you may encounter the fire. God is a consuming fire. His correction is like a father to a son.

To Him who earnestly remembered us in our low estate and imprinted us on His Heart, for His Mercy and Loving Kindness endure forever. Ps 136:23
The pattern in scripture is after punishment comes restoration .

Der Alte · Apr 14, 2022

Clare73 said:
Where "destroy" (apollumi) means to ruin, kill, waste, loss of well-being--not to annihilate,
as seen in its usage in Matthew 2:13, 8:25, 9:17, 22:7, 26:8, 52, 27:20; Luke 5:37, 15:4, 6:24;
John 6:27, 1 Peter 1:7.

ἀπόλλυμι/Apollumi occurs 86 times in the NT, of this 68 times, 79%, it cannot mean the destruction/annihilation which some argue supposedly occurs at the final judgment. Here is a list of those meanings.(1) ruin, (2) do not bring about his ruin, (3) put to death, the wicked tenants, (4) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death, (5) destroy the wisdom of the wise, (6) destroy the understanding, (7) lose, (8) lose the reward, (9) lose what we have worked for, (10) lose one’s life, (11) lose oneself, (12) The man who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; the one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’), (13) ruined, (14) die, the man dies, (15) As a cry of anguish, we are perishing!, (16) of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer, (17) die by the sword, (18) die of hunger, (19) be corrupted, (20) killed by the snakes, (21) those who are lost, (22) of things be lost, (23) pass away, (24) be ruined, (26) of bursting wineskins, (25) fading beauty, (26) transitory beauty of gold, (27) passing splendor, (28) Of earthly food, (29) spoiled honey, (30) Of falling hair, (31) a member or organ of the body, (32) remnants of food, (33) of wine that has lost its flavor, (34) of sheep gone astray, (35) Of a lost son [that returned].
…..Here is the definition of apollumi from BDAG, one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available
= = = = = = = = = =

ἀπόλλυμι for its conjug. s. B-D-F §101 (s.v. ὄλλυμι); W-S. §14, 18; Rob. 317; fut. ἀπολέσω Hs 8, 7, 5; Att. ἀπολῶ 1 Cor 1:19 (Is 29:14; ParJer 1:1, 8); 1 aor. ἀπώλεσα; 1 pf. ἀπολώλεκα. Mid.: fut. ἀπολοῦμαι Lk 13:3; 2 aor. ἀπωλόμην; the 2 pf. ἀπόλωλα functions as a pf. mid.; ptc. ἀπολωλώς (Hom.+).
① to cause or experience destructionⓐ act.
ruin, destroy
α. of pers. (Sir 10:3) Mk 1:24; Lk 4:34. W. ref. to eternal destruction μὴ ἐκεῖνον ἀπόλλυε do not bring about his ruin ton 2, 8, 1) Js 4:12; Hs 9, 23, 4. Of Ro 14:15. Esp. kill, put to death (Gen 20:4; Esth 9:6 v.l.; 1 Macc 2:37; Jos., C. Ap. 1, 122; Mel., P. 84, 635 [Ch.] τὸν ἐχθρόν σου) Hs 9, 26, 7. παιδίον Mt 2:13; Jesus 12:14; 27:20; Mk 3:6; 11:18; Lk 19:47; B 12:5; the wicked tenants κακοὺς κακῶς ἀ. (s. κακός 1a) he will put the evildoers to a miserable death Mt 21:41. τοὺς γεωργούς Mk 12:9; Lk 20:16; τ. φονεῖς Mt 22:7; τ. μὴ πιστεύσαντας those who did not believe Jd 5; πάντας Lk 17:27, 29. W. σῶσαι (like Charito 2, 8,1) Js 4:12: H9, 3, 4. eternal death (Herm. Wr. 4, 7; Tat. 11:2 ἀπώλεσεν ἡμᾶς τὸ αὐτέξουσιον) ψυχὴν κ. σῶμα ἀ. ἐν γεέννῃ Mt 10:28; ψυχήν B 20:1; τ. ψυχάς Hs 9, 26, 3 (cp. Sir 20:22).
β. w. impers. obj. ἀ. τ. σοφίαν τ. σοφῶν destroy the wisdom of the wise 1 Cor 1:19 (Is 29:14). ἀ. τ. διάνοιαν destroy the understanding Hm 11:1 (cp. Just., D. 93, 1 τὰς φυσικὰς ἐννοίας).γ. without obj. J 10:10.
ⓑ mid. perish, be ruined
α. of pers. perish, die (schol. on Nicander, Ther. 188 ἀπόλλυται ὁ ἀνήρ=the man dies υσθαι) 1 Cl 51:5; 55:6; B 5:4, 12; D 16:5; Hs 6, 2, 1f. As a cry of anguish ἀπολλύμεθα we are perishing! (Epict. 2, 19, 16 [in a storm-tossed vessel]; PPetr II, 4 [1], 4f νυνὶ δὲ ἀπολλύμεθα) Mt 8:25; Mk 4:38; Lk 8:24 (Arrian, Peripl. 3, 3 of disaster that the stormy sea brings to the seafarer). ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀ. die by the sword Mt 26:52. λιμῷ of hunger (Ezk 34:29) Lk 15:17. τῇ ἀντιλογίᾳ τοῦ Κόρε Jd 11c (because of 11a and b it should perh. = be corrupted ; cp. Polyb. 32, 23, 6). ὑπό τινος (Hdt. 5. 126; Dio Chrys. 13 [7], 12) ὑπὸ τ. ὄφεων killed by the snakes 1 Cor 10:9; cp. vs. 10. Abs. of a people perish J 11:50. Of individuals (Lev 23:30) Ac 5:37; 2 Pt 3:9; 1 Cl 12:6; 39:5 (Job 4:20).—Esp. of eternal death (cp. Ps 9:6f; 36:20; 67:3; 72:27; 82:18; 91:10; Is 41:11) J 3:16; 17:12. ἀπολέσθαι εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα perish forever 10:28 (Bar 3:3 ἡμεῖς ἀπολλύμενοι τὸν αἰῶνα). ἀνόμως ἀ. Ro 2:12; μωρῶς ἀ. IEph 17:2 (cp. ἀσκόπως Just., D. 8, 4); ἐν καυχήσει because of boasting ITr 4:1; cp. IPol 5:2. Abs. 1 Cor 8:11; 15:18; 2 Cl 17:1.—οἱ ἀπολλύμενοι (opp. οἱ σῳζόμενοι, as in Plut., Mor. 469d) those who are lost 1 Cor 1:18; 2 Cor 2:15; 4:3; 2 Th 2:10; 2 Cl 1:4; 2:5. For this τὸ ἀπολωλός Lk 19:10 (Mt 18:10 v.l.—Ezk 34:4, 16). τὰ ἀπολλύμενα 2 Cl 2:7 (cp. SIG 417, 9 τὰ τε ἀπολωλότα ἐκ τ. ἱεροῦ ἀνέσωσαν). S. also 3b end.
β. of things be lost, pass away, be ruined (Jos., Bell. 2, 650 of Jerusalem; Tat. 17, 2 πάθος … ἀπολλύμενον) of bursting wineskins Mt 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 5:37; fading beauty Js 1:11; transitory beauty of gold
1 Pt 1:7. AcPl Ha 2, 24; [χρυσὸς]| γὰρ ἀπόλλυται 9:8f; passing splendor Rv 18:14 (w. ἀπό as Jer 10:11; Da 7:17). Of earthly food J 6:27; spoiled honey Hm 5, 1, 5; σαρκὸς ἀπολλυμένης AcPlCor 2:15. Of the heavens which, like the earth, will pass away Hb 1:11 (Ps 101:27). Of the end of the world Hv 4, 3, 3, Of the way of the godless, which is lost in darkness B 11:7 (Ps 1:6). μὴ … τὸ μνημόσυνον [ὑμῶν]| ἀπόλιτε (read ἀπόληται) AcPl Ha 1, 22f.
② to fail to obtain what one expects or anticipates, lose out on, lose (X., Pla.+; PPetr III, 51, 5; POxy 743, 23; PFay 111, 3ff; Sir 6:3; 9:6; 27:16 al.; Tob 7:6 BA; 4 Macc 2:14; Tat. 8, τὸν ἐρώμενον; 15, 1) τ. μισθόν lose the reward Mt 10:42; Mk 9:41; Hs 5, 6, 7. δραχμήν (Dio Chrys. 70 [20], 25) Lk 15:8f; ἀ. ἃ ἠργασάμεθα lose what we have worked for 2J 8. διαθήκην B 4:7, 8. τὴν ζωὴν τ. ἀνθρώπων Hm 2:1; cp. Hs 8, 6, 6; 8, 7, 5; 8, 8, 2f and 5. τὴν ἐλπίδα m 5, 1, 7.
③ to lose someth. that one already has or be separated from a normal connection, lose, be lost
ⓐ act. w. colloq. flavor ἵνα πᾶν ὃ δέδωκέν μοι μή ἀπολέσω ἐξ αὐτοῦ that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me J 6:39 (B-D-F §466, 3 on Semitic assoc.; Rob. 437; 753).—ἀ. τὴν ψυχήν (cp. Sir 20:22) lose one’s life Mt 10:39; 16:25; Mk 8:35; Lk 9:24; 17:33; cp. J 12:25. For this ἀ. ἑαυτόν lose oneself Lk 9:25 (similar in form is Tyrtaeus [VII b.c.], Fgm. 8 Diehl2 lines 11–14: ‘One who risks his life in battle has the best chance of saving it; one who flees to save it is most likely to lose it’).
ⓑ mid. (Antiphon: Diels, Vorsokrat. 87, Fgm. 54 ἀπολόμενον ἀργύριον; X., Symp. 1, 5; 1 Km 9:3; Tat. 9, 2) ISm 10:1. Of falling hair Lk 21:18; Ac 27:34; a member or organ of the body Mt 5:29f; remnants of food J 6:12. Of wine that has lost its flavor Hm 12, 5, 3.— Of sheep gone astray Mt 10:6; 15:24; Lk 15:4, 6; B 5:12 (cp. Jer 27:6; Ezk 34:4; Ps 118:176). Of a lost son Lk 15:24 (Artem. 4, 33 ἡ γυνὴ … τ. υἱὸν ἀπώλεσε καὶ … εὗρεν αὐτόν); of humanity in general ἀπολλύμενος ἐζητήθη ἵνα ζωοποιηθῇ διὰ τῆς υἱοθεσίας when lost, humanity was sought, so that it might regain life through acceptance into sonship AcPlCor 2:8 (cp. 1bα.—JSchniewind, D. Gleichn. vom verl. Sohn ’40). ἀ. θεῷ be lost to God Hs 8, 6, 4 (cod. A for ἀπέθανον).—B. 758. DELG s.v. ὄλλυμι. M-M. TW.[1]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000).
Link to earlier edition, online. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Gingrich & Danker (3rd ed., pp. 115–116). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Hmm · Apr 14, 2022

Andrewn said:
"The Christian religion considers the Second Coming of Christ to be the final and infinite judgment by God of the people of every nation [1] resulting in the approval of some and the penalizing of others."

"The Eastern Orthodox Church teaches that there are two judgments: the first, or particular judgment, is that experienced by each individual at the time of his or her death, at which time God will decide where[22] one is to spend the time until the Second Coming of Christ (see Hades in Christianity). This judgment is generally believed to occur on the fortieth day after death. The second, General or Final Judgment will occur after the Second Coming."

"Anglican and Methodist theology holds that "there is an intermediate state between death and the resurrection of the dead, in which the soul does not sleep in unconsciousness, but exists in happiness or misery till the resurrection, when it shall be reunited to the body and receive its final reward."[5][6]"

Last Judgment - Wikipedia

Interesting, thanks.

Andrewn said:
To me the concept of a Last Judgment supports the idea of post-mortem progression before that judgment. Otherwise, if the results of the individual judgment and the last judgment are identical, the latter would be, more or less, redundant. This is consistent w/ EO (and LDS) theology.

And, I believe, consistent with the universalist perspective too.

Andrewn said:
But again, the concept of a Last Judgment suggests that at least few will be condemned forever (whether to ECT or annihilation).

It may suggest it but it does not imply it. Perhaps none of us are ultimately condemned or destroyed. Let's hope so

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

public hermit said:
Well, I don't doubt Christ or the scriptures. What I doubt are human constructs such as substitution and satisfaction theories that make God look petty and weak.

But is it not you who seeks to bring God down to your level,
who regards Scripture's revelation of God's thinking and ways as beneath your thinking and ways,
and who has failed yet to apprehend

"God's ways are higher than our ways, and his thoughts (higher) than our thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)?

Substitutionary atonement is the very pattern/type presented in the OT sacrifices of atonement;
i.e. God's construct.

Satisfaction, or "forgiveness" being the Biblical term used, an accounting term meaning cancellation of a debt, it being satisfied by payment;
again, God's construct from the God-breathed Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16).

These are not human constructs, nor are they theories manufactured from whole cloth,
they are God's construct, which is presented in authoritative NT apostolic teaching.

theories that make God look petty and weak. I also doubt a long history of insisting not all can be saved. They certainly can be since God is more than willing and capable. Whatever the case, I'm perfectly fine with having those doubts.

wendykvw · Apr 14, 2022

Clare73 said:
Actually, in 2 Corinthians 3:6, there is no "spirit of the law," nor "letter of the law."

There is only the Holy Spirit, and the letter (which is the law, the written code) and which is not Scripture in general.
And it's not about counterfeit obedience vs. genuine obedience.
It's about grace vs. law, faith vs. works, New Covenant vs. Old Covenant.

The letter (law) kills because it curses all those who rely on it (Galatians 3:10), because it must be kept perfectly to make one righteous before God, no one can do that, so it condemns everyone to death--the law kills.
That's life under the Old Covenant, righteousness by works, which is impossible = condemnation.

Under the New Covenant we are not made righteous by law keeping, but by the new birth of the Holy Spirit where, through faith in the person and work of Jesus Christ, we are justified--declared "not guilty"
by God, made right with his justice, reconciled to him, and Jesus' own righteousness is reckoned, accounted, imputed to us.
That's life under the New Covenant, righteousness by faith in Jesus Christ = salvation.

The "letter" vs. the "spirit" has nothing to do with wrong focus vs. right focus, and everything to do with law vs. grace.

Agreed. We can not lose or gain redemption via works. However our heart and love for God and our neighbor must match that of the spirit. According to Christ Matthew 25:44-46, those on the left who called Him Lord needed a heart of love towards the less fortunate. There is no other option. He contrasted this message with those on the right who had the spirit of love and compassion. Those on the left did not.

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

kvw said:
Agreed. We can not lose or gain redemption via works. However
our heart and love for God and our neighbor must match that of the spirit. According to Christ Matthew 25:44-46, those on the left who called Him Lord needed a heart of love towards the less fortunate. There is no other option. He contrasted this message with those on the right who had the spirit of love and compassion. Those on the left did not.

Nevertheless, that is not what is being taught in 2 Corinthians 3:6, which is my point.

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

bling said:
Psychologists and I make a distinction between “discipline” and “punishment”. The Greek word can be translated either way and the same word can be used for educate and train. Negative disciplining is mostly translated punishment, but do you see a difference with the meanings of punishment and discipline?

Following the instruction of psychologist: I should never punish my children, but do discipline my children.

Can you be a good parent and not negatively discipline you children if you have the opportunity?

Think about this:

There is a, one of a kind, Ming vase on your parent’s mantel that has been handed down by your great, great, grandmother. You, as a young person, get angry with your parents and smash the vase. You are later sorry about it and repent and your loving parent can easily forgive you. Since this was not your first rebellious action your father, in an act of Love, collects every little piece of the vase and you willingly work together with your father hours each night for a month painstakingly gluing the vase back together. The vase is returned to the mantel to be kept as a show piece, but according to Antique Road Show, it is worthless. Working with your father helped you develop a much stronger relationship, comfort in being around him and appreciation for his Love.

Was your father fair/just and would others see this as being fair discipline? Did this “punishment” help resolve the issue?

Was restitution made or was reconciliation made and would you feel comfortable/ justified standing by your father in the future?

Suppose after smashing the vase, repenting and forgiveness, your older brother says he will work with your father putting the vase together, so you can keep up with your social life. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

Suppose Jesus the magician waved his hands over the smashed vase and restored it perfectly to the previous condition, so there is really very little for you to be forgiven of or for you to do. Would this scenario allow you to stand comfortable and justified by your father?

What are the benefits of being lovingly disciplined?

Suppose it is not you that breaks the Ming vase but your neighbor breaks into your house because he does not like your family being so nice and smashes the Ming vase, but he is caught on a security camera. Your father goes to your neighbor with the box of pieces and offers to do the same thing with him as he offered to do with you, but the neighbor refuses. Your father explains: everything is caught on camera and he will be fined and go to jail, but the neighbor, although sorry about being caught, still refuses. The neighbor loses all he has and spends 10 years in jail. So was the neighbor fairly disciplined or fairly punished?

How does the neighbor’s punishment equal your discipline and how is it not equal?

Was the neighbor forgiven and if not why not?

Would there be a benefit to God’s other children, if those who refuse the just disciplining to be punished after their death for at least a while?

Enabling human notions with even more magnified human notions.

Maria Billingsley · Apr 14, 2022

Clare73 said:
Is not unbelief the only sin that condemns, in the sense that it prevents redemption from the condemnation of Romans 5:18?

Not sure if unbelief is the only sin that condemns. There is hypocrisy that rages on in Christendom that causes many to fall away. Unbeknownst to them, the hypocrite, walks in the flesh rather than the Spirit. One must be regenerated and yes it starts with belief but it is also conversion and many skip this part due to many factors. "I never knew you" comes to mind.

Maria Billingsley · Apr 14, 2022

Clare73 said:
Christian theology is that he is not because he is immutable.

He is not what? Emotional?

wendykvw · Apr 14, 2022

Clare73 said:
Nevertheless, that is not what is being taught in 2 Corinthians 3:6.

Clare73 said:
Nevertheless, that is not what is being taught in 2 Corinthians 3:6, which is my point.

I am having difficulty understanding your point. How do you describe salvation and divine punishment?

Clare73 · Apr 14, 2022

kvw said:
Can you clarify what your thoughts are about justification and sanctification.

The NT presents justification as God's declaring (making) one righteous by faith only, apart from faith's works of law keeping (Romans 3:21, Romans 3:28; Galatians 2:16, Galatians 3:11) by accounting, reckoning, imputing his own righteousness to one (Romans 1:17) through faith, as he did to Abraham (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:2-3, and is called (reckoned) imputed righteousness.

The NT presents sanctification as obedience in the Holy Spirit which leads to righteousness leading to holiness in one (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19), and is called imparted righteousness.

kvw said:
I am having difficulty understanding your point. How do you describe salvation.

The NT presents salvation as redemption from God's wrath (Romans 5:9) by faith in and trust on the person and atoning work (blood, Romans 3:25) of Jesus Christ for the remission of one's sin and right standing with God's justice; i.e., "not guilty."

kvw said:
I am having difficulty understanding your point.
How do you describe salvation and
divine punishment?

The NT presents divine punishment as hell fire, where "the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die" (Mark 9:48, 43) as the result of not believing in (John 3:18) and rejecting Jesus Christ (John 3:36).

That all pretty much covers the waterfront.
Good for you. . .

Divine punishment? Is it needed?

Is divine punishment necessary for unrepentant sin at the time of death?

Yes

No

Other

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Regular Member

Blood-bought

This is me about 1 yr. old. when FDR was president

Hey, I'm just this guy, you know

Blood-bought

Author, and Patristic Universalist Minister

Blood-bought

Blood-bought

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Author, and Patristic Universalist Minister

Blood-bought

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency