Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[public hermit]

How does the Father see us now? Seems some think we can still add sin to the cross. There is no sin that made it past the blood of Jesus Christ. Not covered but as God said OT He will remember it no more. As our brother Paul by the sweet sweet holy Spirit said to Jews that were saved but offer up a sacrifice for that sin. There is no more sacrifice for that sin. Christ can not die again.

I don't know one believer that has no sin. In that I mean there are so many things we believe are OK yet to GOD they are not and He will say nothing unless we truly from our heart wish to Change. Some of those things can be sin yet we believe its OK but God again will not go against our will. So there is no unrepentant sin that Christ didn't die for. I can still hurt my Father and give the enemy the right to do things in my life IF I sin and don't repent. But the punishment Christ already took for you.

You are going to have to accept it. All HE says "thats why I died". We still see how evil sin is and WE not Him WE have to pay a price for it. This coming from some one that always repents..KNOWING He took everything I would ever do to the Cross. I am seated in heavenly places and boldly comes before Him. I am righteous holy right now forever.. wow.. I don't know if you will believe this...when it happens..its so awesome. Guess what song and words were playing as I was typing "seated, boldly, righteous holy"? (How you see me how you see me now) by Lydia Laird. Yeah I was thinking typing how the Father sees us.. righteous holy because we believe in Jesus and PRAISE GOD GLORY TO JESUS.. the words caught me haha "how you see how you see me know".. Yeah what are the odds.

I'm done.. does not happen every day but when it does.. perfect timing. WOW

I feel like you just had a special moment. I won't disturb it any more than this awkward moment of acknowledgement.

 

[Mink61]

I think I'm following you. I don't want to say God is less than us, e.g. like a rock and not a Person, but God certainly transcends us. Traditionally, folks have located the divine image in certain properties of humanity, e.g. intelligence, agency, relationality, etc. Rarely, if ever, is it located in emotion. That might be a mistake; I might concur. But it must be a different level of emotion. God is subject to no thing. So, our understanding of divine emotion would need to be significantly qualified, perhaps so much that it becomes metaphor.

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.

 

[public hermit]

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.

I think what concerns people, myself included, is a concept of God where emotion drives the divine will, like it can ours. The OT presents a very anthropomorphic concept of God. God regrets, changes the divine mind, and is vindictive. That's almost as bad as the Greek god's that were fully under the sway of the passions.

In God there is no shadow of turning. That is an ancient way of saying God is immutable. Immutability and passion don't mix. Or, do they? I really don't know, but I'm inclined to think God does not throw fits or get depressed. I pray to more solid ground than that.

 

[Mink61]

I think what concerns people, myself included, is a concept of God where emotion drives the divine will, like it can ours. The OT presents a very anthropomorphic concept of God. God regrets, changes the divine mind, and is vindictive. That's almost as bad as the Greek god's that were fully under the sway of the passions.

I think what you may miss is the difference between what's divine and what's human.

There's human 'jealousy' and then there's divine 'jealously'. Our human 'emotions' aren't even close to God's "emotions". Does God cry? Yes, I believe he does. Does he get jealous? Again, yes...But does, that make Him any less of a God?

Some people think so. Yet, again I ask, "So WHERE did these emotions come from?"

In God there is no shadow of turning. That is an ancient way of saying God is immutable. Immutability and passion don't mix. Or, do they? I really don't know, but I'm inclined to think God does not throw fits or get depressed. I pray to more solid ground than that.

 

[Oleaster]

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.

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

 

[public hermit]

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

Sounds good. Amen.

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

Anselm was superimpising his experience under a feudal system on to the cross/resurrection event. And, sadly, it doesn't work as the contradiction you just clearly stated shows. The honor approach is bunk and makes God out to look petty.

However, eternal punishment in hell can be seen as infinitely more merciful than utter destruction of a soul

That's a bold claim.

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

This argument doesn't work, I don't think. Annihilation means you're no longer there. Eternal torment means you are there + you are in perpetual torment. You can't can convince any right thinking person that the latter is better than the former.

Is divine punishment necessary?

Yes.

If so, why?

Law. Cause and effect

Thank you for a very thoughtful response.

 

[Oleaster]

Anselm was superimpising his experience under a feudal system on to the cross/resurrection event. And, sadly, it doesn't work

Anselm's argument is not especially strong or appealing to modern sensibilities, I agree.

Annihilation means you're no longer there. Eternal torment means you are there + you are in perpetual torment. You can't can convince any right thinking person that the latter is better than the former.

Think of Dante's view where hell is "customized," if you will, to each individual's spiritual condition. Perhaps you think that even the most gentle and merciful version of eternal torment in a lake of fire seems cruel, but it is at least imaginable, as Dante proves. Utter destruction of a soul is an unimaginable torment.

You may be focusing on the after effect, the oblivion. "Wouldn't oblivion be better than perpetual awareness of suffering?" Sure, I suppose, if oblivion could actually be anything. But oblivion is literally nothing. Nada. Oblivion can't be "better" than anything, because oblivion can't be.

There is no moving from being to oblivion. Think of the law of conservation of mass or the first law of thermodynamics with respect to energy. What is, is. Forever. To even try to imagine the violence required to cause a living spirit to cease being a living spirit makes my heart shudder. Think of the insane violence unleashed when the nucleus of an atom is ripped apart, and in that case, nothing actually ceases to be. God isn't going to obliterate souls. That would be some kind of self-mutilation of insane proportions for God.

Since all being is a participation in God, then even hell has this consolation, that it must be related in some way to the God who is love. Some saint said she'd gladly plunge herself into hell if she knew it was God's will for her. Of course, it is not God's will for anyone. But most saints make peace with hell at some point, trusting in God's mercy. You know, sort of, "We hope God will deliver us, but if not, we will still trust that hell will be merciful enough for us."

 

[hedrick]

Whether punishment is needed is a different question of whether God actually does it.

Biblically, the OT certainly assumes that God punishes sin, though repentance is possible. Some interpretations of the atonement think punishment is key to what Jesus did, though I don’t agree with that.

But when you ask why punishment, you’re asking a deeper question for which there’s no direct Biblical answer. Historically, most people have assumed that punishment is the only way to control behavior, and that violations of the law (including the divine law) create a cosmic debt that only punishment can pay off.

More recently, psychologists will tell us that controlling behavior isn’t the right goal — developing character is, and there are ways to hold people accountable other than punishment. These approaches seem better suited to the family than a justice system. They rely on relationships between parents and children, while our justice system normally intervenes when that kind of thing doesn’t work. At the very least, there are people that have to be removed from society for the safety of the rest of us, whether they are punished or not.

But it’s not clear how God’s punishment relates to these. At one point it acted as a deterrent against some kinds of sin. But it’s a blunt instrument. Fear of punishment, as we know from current psychology, can suppress some kinds of behavior, but is not as good at encouraging the kind of people I think Jesus wanted. And it’s no use at all against people who don’t believe in God.

By the last judgement, of course, it’s too late to accomplish anything, though if the fear of punishment was used during life, I suppose God is bound to carry out his threats. But if you believe in the cosmic debt justification, then whether it accomplishes anything doesn’t matter, and the whole question of whether it's necessary isn't relevant.

That Jesus taught some kind of judgement is obvious. Just how punitive it was seems to vary, with Matthew seeing punishment as important, and Paul not so much. At the very least, it seems we’ll have to face what we did, as per 1 Cor 3:12ff. Jesus spoke of judgement in quite a variety of ways. Might he have been referring to that kind of thing, as well as perhaps our upset when we realize just how badly we messed up, and how much more humble our reward is going to be than what we hoped. In Luke, maybe. In Matthew, no.

If universalism isn't true, then we still have the problem that some people can't be allowed into heaven, because they would corrupt it. Destruction or eternity separated from the redeemed without parole seems necessary in that case, though not necessarily punishment (though that might out to be in effect punishment).

 

[wendykvw]

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)

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. 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 .

 

[Andrewn]

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.

I gave your post a winner star because of the first portion regarding God's impassibility, which is a problem for your fellow-Catholic @Mink61 and many Calvinists. But Anslem's theory is incorrect and it leads to the horrible Penal Substitution belief.

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.

This sounds like a belief in the law of karma, cosmic debt. This is OK, except that Christians are exempted from that law. "For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set you free from the law of sin and death" (Rom 8:2). Although, for the sake of character development, "the Lord disciplines the one He loves, and He chastises every son He receives” (Heb 12:6).

Eternal punishment, in contrast to the temporal, serves no clear purpose, as far as I have heard.

True.

This is more merciful than utter destruction because, as Aquinas demonstrates, existence is better than nonexistence.

This sounds like an unproven axiom.

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.

You postulate this but cannot prove it. Do animals and plants have eternal souls?

Are there any better ideas out there of what punishment is or does? In my opinion, no.

Compared to Eternal Conscious Torment, yes, there are many better ideas.

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.

First, this is not the impression one gets from NT that talk about God's punishment. Second, there is no proof that sinners would rather stay in Eternal Conscious Torment.

 

[Hmm]

By the last judgement, of course, it’s too late to accomplish anything, though if the fear of punishment was used during life, I suppose God is bound to carry out his threats.

Is that necessarily true? It's assuming that judgement has to be a binary either complete acquittal (heaven), or the worst possible fate imaginable (an everlasting hell). Could the judgement not be that you need a period of education/correction so that you will then freely and gladly bow down and worship Christ as Lord? This of course is the Christian universalist view and it's not dissimilar to the Catholic idea purgatory, i.e. it's a place/state where you're guaranteed to go on to heaven but only after a time-limited duration (however long it may be, it's not forever) of purification.

Otherwise, it's like saying I've up before the judge tomorrow so I'm either going to be completely exonerated or be sentenced to death - there's no in-between because the judge has no powers to impose a limited or a remedial sentence.

 

[Andrewn]

Could the judgement not be that you need a period of education/correction for you to freely and gladly bow down and worship Christ as Lord?

I assume that @hedrick was talking about the Last Judgment, not the individual judgment immediately after death. From previous posts, I get the impression that universalists, generally and consistently, confuse the 2 judgments .

 

[Hmm]

I assume that @hedrick was talking about the Last Judgment, not the individual judgment immediately after death. From previous posts, I get the impression that universalists, generally and consistently, confuse the 2 judgments .

Okay, thanks for the clarification. I wasn't aware that there was a difference. The way I imagine it is that everyone has an individual judgement that may well involve some kind of purification that will probably be different and lasting for a different length of "time" for everyone, although of course what we mean by "time" would be very different than what it means in this space-time physical universe. I accept that it's hard to see where the Last Judgement fits into this model if that means a single act of judgment of all, unless the Last Judgement has already been made and it's that we're all eventually going to be saved. But, as I say, I have no idea of what it means.

 

[hedrick]

I assume that @hedrick was talking about the Last Judgment, not the individual judgment immediately after death. From previous posts, I get the impression that universalists, generally and consistently, confuse the 2 judgments .

My original response was intended to apply whether universalism is true or not.

I agree that universalists often think there is finite punishment, after which people join the rest of the redeemed. But why might that punishment happen:

• because God threatened punishment and has to carry out his threats
• because sin creates a cosmic debt that has to be paid, i.e. sinners deserve punishment and justice demands it
  
• because punishment makes people fit for heaven

The second seems to be commonly assumed, but I don't see much basis.

I doubt the third. Punishment can suppress some behaviors for a while, but typically isn't as good as other approaches at creating good people.

Punishment, to me, means the intentional infliction of pain. One type of temporary suffering that's been suggested is that removal of sin causes pain, because it makes people confront painful aspects of themselves and their history. That is possible, but I wouldn't call it punishment, because the pain isn't intentional, but rather is a side effect of something with a different goal. This is what Paul refers to in 1 Cor 3:12 ff. Might it be what Jesus' descriptions of judgement are about?

 

[Andrewn]

I accept that it's hard to see where the Last Judgement fits into this model if that means a single act of judgment of all, unless the Last Judgement has already been made and it's that we're all eventually going to be saved. But, as I say, I have no idea of what it means.

"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

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.

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

 

[Clare73]

I'm going with "other" as my answer, but the way I arrive at my view is a little different than the [supposed] traditional one which we hear so much about, and it's part of
the reason that I lean toward Annihilationism.

Assuming annihilation is an option. . .nowhere presented in NT teaching, right?

So that leaves us with eternal punishment, which is presented in NT teaching.

For me, the particular situation you speak of is contingent upon a person's death having already taken place and it becomes, rather than a mere case of restoring God's honor or paying for sins, a matter of failure on the part of the sinner to apprehend God's Grace and Mercy

But is not the fact that he stands condemned, [and in fact was born so (Romans 5:18) by nature (Ephesians 2:3) an object of wrath, creating the need for God's grace and mercy], not God's justice?

through the New Covenant in Christ.
And so, in sum: he fails to secure (i.e. to lay hold of) that which is provided.

Its necessity being due to justice, right?

 

[Clare73]

I dont want to tip the scales towards Universalism however, unrepentant
sin from the flesh is one thing and unrepentant sin of disbelief is another.
Restitution can come in many forms.
Blessings

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

 

[Clare73]

Did Jesus suffer punishment for our sins, or "pay the price" through his suffering? If so, why more punishment and suffering? Was his payment not sufficient?

God has ordained that Jesus' payment of the debt (i.e., forgiveness, an accounting term) be applied only to those who believe.
It is his sovereign right and choice to do so.

Why all this doubting of God's word written?

 

[Fervent]

Voted other, because divine "punishment" is necessary but not on account of sin. Jesus' bloodshed paid whatever price is necessary for sin, not only ours but the sins of the whole world. Yet there remains unbelief, a rejection of God's person. Sin may be intentional or unintentional, but there is no unintentional manner in which to reject God's person. Those who choose unbelief do so because they love what is evil, and so the "punishment" is not a matter of repaying them for crimes committed but confining their evil desires to themselves.

 

[public hermit]

God has ordained that Jesus' payment of the debt (i.e., forgiveness, an accounting term) be applied only to those who believe.
It is his sovereign right and choice to do so.

Why all this doubting of God's word written?

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. 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.