Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[wendykvw]

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.

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."

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. . .

Yes, it is helpful to see where your pov stands.

The freewill objection is weak because it requires us to believe that our heavenly Father would treat us with less love and compassion than our earthly parents by idly standing by while we stumble into eternal damnation.

 

[Oleaster]

Anslem's theory is incorrect and it leads to the horrible Penal Substitution belief.

You are welcome to demonstrate Anselm’s incorrectness, rather than merely pronouncing judgment. The Catholic perspective, of course, is that Anselm’s understanding is correct. It is not, however, complete. For us, Anselm contributes essential ideas towards the development of a complete theology of the atonement. Those ideas require nuanced application in combination with contributions from other theologians to bring forth the fuller understanding of Christ’s work on the cross. Therefore, misunderstood or taken out of context, Anselm’s ideas could perhaps be seen to lead towards a Protestant Penal Substitution belief or to any other heretical notion. In Catholicism, ultimately, “the Atonement is the work of love,” because God is love. Source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Doctrine of the Atonement

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).

Of course we Catholics do not believe in karma. And we believe that the manner in which “we are released from the law, dead to what held us captive, [is] so that we may serve in the newness of the spirit and not under the obsolete letter” (Rm 7:6). Our Lord tells us, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments” (Jn 14:15) to which we reply, “Amen.” These commandments are to love God and neighbor, which is impossible without faith.

Augustine says: “Unintelligent persons, however, with regard to the apostle's statement: We conclude that a man is justified by faith without the works of the law, (Rm 3:28) have thought him to mean that faith suffices to a man, even if he lead a bad life, and has no good works. Impossible is it that such a character should be deemed a vessel of election by the apostle, who, after declaring that in Christ Jesus neither circumcision avails anything, nor uncircumcision, (Gal 5:6) adds at once, but faith which works by love. It is such faith which severs God's faithful from unclean demons - for even these believe and tremble, (Js 2:19) as the Apostle James says; but they do not do well. Therefore they possess not the faith by which the just man lives - the faith which works by love in such wise, that God recompenses it according to its works with eternal life. But inasmuch as we have even our good works from God, from whom likewise comes our faith and our love, therefore the selfsame great teacher of the Gentiles has designated eternal life itself as His gracious gift (Rm 6:23).” Source: CHURCH FATHERS: On Grace and Free Will (St. Augustine)

This sounds like an unproven axiom.

That existence is better than nonexistence is proved in Catholic theology. The only being that really, factually exists is God. He is the one, true, ultimate and eternal reality. Anything else that exists, temporally or in any other mode, does so only by sharing in His essence. And of course, He is good. Therefore, all existence is good. To cease to exist would not be good.

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

My position in this discussion has nothing to do with animals or plants or even rocks or basic material elements. It has to do with Being itself. God is, always was, and always will be. Everything that He has ever created shares somehow in His being and therefore, in some ultimate mystical cosmic sense, always will be.

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

You are welcome to demonstrate a better idea.

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.

People get all sorts of impressions from “NT talk.” It is beyond me to be acquainted with them all. And it is doubtful that much if anything about hell can be thoroughly proved by anybody who hasn’t been there to testify. Lewis’ idea in The Great Divorce is that hell greatly resembles the world we presently inhabit, only without God and His graces, which is to say, without love. In that book, people who are satisfied to live here and now without love do not even notice a difference when they pass over to hell, and that is why they choose to stay there in what you call Eternal Conscious Torment. It’s no new torment to them. It’s the same torment they live in now and, for them, it is acceptable. Perhaps it’s not even torment. At least, they don’t seem to recognize it as such.

 

[Clare73]

Anslem's theory is incorrect and it leads to the horrible Penal Substitution belief.

The horrible penal substitution belief comes from the OT sacrificial system which was God's pattern/type for the NT atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

In the OT, the animal sacrifices were a penalty for sin (Leviticus 5:6-7, 15, 6:6, 26:41, 43).

Likewise, the life of the animal was taken as a substitute for the life of the sinner (Leviticus 1:4-5, 4:4), for since the beginning, the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23).

Jesus' sacrifice (death) was the penal substitute for my eternal death.

Your objection is to God's own ordinance.

This sounds like a belief in the law of karma, cosmic debt.

Actually, it is God's law, patterned in the OT sacrificial system commanded by him.

This is OK, except that Christians are exempted from that law.

Only because Christ was subject to that law in their place.

For in Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set you free from the law of sin and death" (Rom 8:2).

By Christ's sacrificial death. . .

 

[Oleaster]

'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).

Thank you for responding. I’m familiar with notions of sola fide, sola gratia, and sola scriptura, having been born and raised in the Protestant milieu. It was by no means easy for God to extricate me from thence, as I had become probably one of the staunchest anti-Catholics you could ever have met. Pope = antichrist. Roman Church = Mystery Babylon. Been there. Done that.

From my current perspective, the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tm 3:15), and the reason is because Christ is the truth (Jn 14:6) and the Church is His body (Eph 1:23). As to which Church that is, amidst all the Babylonian clamoring of today’s 31 flavors of institutions and entities and conventions and associations and “gatherings of two or three in His Holy name,” I look to that Church to whom Paul addressed the epistle that you just cited three times for me here, namely the Church “at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints” (Rm 1:7).

I do not believe that the Roman Church to whom Paul wrote has ever misunderstood that epistle, although his epistle has been misunderstood by every sort of heretic from Marcion to Luther, because, like “all his epistles,” Paul’s epistle to the Romans contains “certain things hard to be understood” (2 Pt 3:16). To the same point, I do not believe that the Roman Church to whom Paul wrote has at any time ever apostatized from the one true faith, because (among a great plethora of scriptural and traditional reasons) I trust the words of our Lord in the Apocalypse, that if a bishop should apostatize, then He would come and remove that bishop’s church from out of the earth. “Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write… (Rev 2:1) Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance and do the first works. Or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance” (Rev 2:5).

For me, the Roman Church of Paul’s time is the same Roman Church of today, merely grown up in Christ “in every way” (Eph 4:15-16). While I do sincerely thank you for your response, I’m not interested in rehashing hundreds-of-years-old arguments that were already exhausted and exhausting enough for everybody way back when. If you want to believe contrary to the Catholic faith, that is your free choice, and I am not worried for your salvation because the Roman Church teaches that everyone who is baptized into the name of the triune God is incorporated into Christ’s body in some mystical way, even though they are not necessarily incorporated into the fullness of our communion. So, if you are not Catholic, I think you are missing out on a great deal of richness and beauty and joy in the Lord, and I’m happy to try to show you (or anyone who is interested) some of the wonders of Christ’s Church that those not in full communion with us seem to be lacking. (I may not succeed, but I would try.) Yet, we needn’t reenact the Lutheran Confessions vs. the Council of Trent and what not. Not here in the 21st century.

Now you say that “man's response is involved only in sanctification.” If that is true, then I would ask you this one rhetorical question - and it is purely rhetorical, no need to respond. Why do you suppose the Lord is concerned about the works of the bishop of Ephesus in the passage that I quoted above from Revelation? The Lord said, “Do penance and do the first works. Or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance.” Why? Why didn't He say rather, “Receive ye renewed faith by grace and consider holding a revival service and afterwards perhaps responding somewhat towards your own sanctification or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place”?

 

[Clare73]

Thank you for responding. I’m familiar with notions of sola fide, sola gratia, and sola scriptura, having been born and raised in the Protestant milieu. It was by no means easy for God to extricate me from thence, as I had become probably one of the staunchest anti-Catholics you could ever have met. Pope = antichrist. Roman Church = Mystery Babylon. Been there. Done that.

From my current perspective, the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tm 3:15), and the reason is because Christ is the truth (Jn 14:6) and the Church is His body (Eph 1:23). As to which Church that is, amidst all the Babylonian clamoring of today’s 31 flavors of institutions and entities and conventions and associations and “gatherings of two or three in His Holy name,”

I look to that Church to whom Paul addressed the epistle that you just cited three times for me here, namely the Church “at Rome, the beloved of God, called to be saints” (Rm 1:7).

I do not believe that the Roman Church to whom Paul wrote has ever misunderstood that epistle,

It's good to know we agree that salvation is through faith, not by works (Ephesians 2:8-9)

although his epistle has been misunderstood by every sort of heretic from Marcion to Luther, because, like “all his epistles,” Paul’s epistle to the Romans contains “certain things hard to be understood” (2 Pt 3:16). To the same point, I do not believe that the Roman Church to whom Paul wrote has at any time ever apostatized from the one true faith, because (among a great plethora of scriptural and traditional reasons) I trust the words of our Lord in the Apocalypse, that if a bishop should apostatize, then He would come and remove that bishop’s church from out of the earth. “Unto the angel of the church of Ephesus write… (Rev 2:1) Be mindful therefore from whence thou art fallen: and do penance and do the first works. Or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place, except thou do penance” (Rev 2:5).

For me, the Roman Church of Paul’s time is the same Roman Church of today, merely grown up in Christ “in every way” (Eph 4:15-16). While I do sincerely thank you for your response, I’m not interested in rehashing hundreds-of-years-old arguments that were already exhausted and exhausting enough for everybody way back when. If you want to believe contrary to the Catholic faith, that is your free choice, and I am not worried for your salvation because the Roman Church teaches that everyone who is baptized into the name of the triune God is incorporated into Christ’s body in some mystical way, even though they are not necessarily incorporated into the fullness of our communion. So, if you are not Catholic, I think you are missing out on a great deal of richness and beauty and joy in the Lord, and I’m happy to try to show you (or anyone who is interested) some of the wonders of Christ’s Church that those not in full communion with us seem to be lacking. (I may not succeed, but I would try.) Yet, we needn’t reenact the Lutheran Confessions vs. the Council of Trent and what not. Not here in the 21st century.

Now you say that “man's response is involved only in sanctification.”

"Man's response" here means "man's good works" are involved only in sanctification, and not in salvation.

If that is true, then I would ask you this one rhetorical question - and it is purely rhetorical, no need to respond. Why do you suppose the Lord is concerned about the works of the bishop of Ephesus in the passage that I quoted above from Revelation? The Lord said, “Do penance and do the first works. Or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place,

except thou do penance.” Why? Why didn't He say rather, “Receive ye renewed faith by grace and consider holding a revival service and afterwards perhaps responding somewhat towards your own sanctification or else I come to thee and will move thy candlestick out of its place”?

1) The word "penance" is nowhere in Scripture.

The word in Revelation 2:5 (Gr: metanoeo) is "repent;" i.e., to change one's mind or purpose;
to turn, from sin and to obedience.

2) The Lord said, "Repent (change, turn back) and do the things you did at first."
Evidently the love they had at first for one another and/or Christ had grown cold.
Their growth in sanctification had stalled, or even reversed.
They are commanded to turn back to it, loving others and/or Christ as they had before.

Don't see anything about "faith to be renewed" in the text.
Not sure what "a revival service" would have to do with it.
"Responding (i.e., working) toward their sanctification" is the repentance; i.e., changing/turning being commanded here.

Are you thinking I am not in agreement with Revelation 2:5?

 

[Andrewn]

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?

I hope the neighbor is not subjected to ECT for breaking the vase .

 

[Andrewn]

Christ takes the consequences of sin on himself. Are we now saying his work was not sufficient; God has to punish folks too? What's the point of Christ's death if it doesn't do the whole job?

God does not punish people who are in Christ: members of his mystical body and temples of the Holy Spirit.

 

[public hermit]

God does not punish people who are in Christ: members of his mystical body and temples of the Holy Spirit.

Not only did all things come into being through him, but in him all things hold together. Whatever being in Christ means beyond that, it must be that all things are already in him in some significant sense. Perhaps "punishment" is not divine wrath being poured out, as if God just can't help himself, but the experience of not reaching the telos for which one is created (as some have already indicated).

I go with the idea that all of us, without exception, will be confronted with a more direct experience of the divine. We are created for union with God. However, we can be ill prepared for that experience. It depends on how much of "me" is of God and how much is contrary to God. To enter the divine presence, we need to be as much like God as possible, i.e. be a developed/mature image of the divine. If I enter the divine presence and my "self" is a construct, foreign to what is good, beautiful, and true, then I will experience the loss of the illusory self I thought I was. That's got to hurt lol. We can call that "punishment," but it's a metaphor and has nothing to do with divine anger or the willful and gratuitous torture of creatures. To the contrary, that experience, as painful as it would be, is cathartic, healing, and restorative.

So, in that sense, those who are in Christ, i.e., have made progress toward their telos, are not "punished" because they died to the illusory self in this life. God is not going to torture the good God created. If there's punishment, it also has a telos.

 

[Andrewn]

For us, Anselm contributes essential ideas towards the development of a complete theology of the atonement. Those ideas require nuanced application in combination with contributions from other theologians to bring forth the fuller understanding of Christ’s work on the cross. Therefore, misunderstood or taken out of context, Anselm’s ideas could perhaps be seen to lead towards a Protestant Penal Substitution belief or to any other heretical notion. In Catholicism, ultimately, “the Atonement is the work of love,” because God is love. Source: CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Doctrine of the Atonement

I often consult the Catholic Encyclopedia but had not read this article before. Thank you for suggesting it. The Catholic Church is certainly a lot bigger than any one individual and is able to keep different ideas in proper perspective.

God is, always was, and always will be. Everything that He has ever created shares somehow in His being and therefore, in some ultimate mystical cosmic sense, always will be.

Of course, God is immortal. But the Bible says that other creatures are not:

1Ti 6:16 He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has seen him or is able to do so. To him be honor and everlasting power. Amen.

You are welcome to demonstrate a better idea.

Better than ECT? There are many ideas around the world, inside and outside Christianity and they do not contradict the Bible. Examples: A purgatory for all people (not just for Catholics w/ venial sin). Post-mortem education of some sort. Some form of metempsychosis. Annihilationism. A world where all people can see God. Etc.

And it is doubtful that much if anything about hell can be thoroughly proved by anybody who hasn’t been there to testify. Lewis’ idea in The Great Divorce is that hell greatly resembles the world we presently inhabit, only without God and His graces, which is to say, without love.

It sounds like almost the opposite of the EO idea of hell being the love and grace of God experienced as intolerable fire by the lost. You're right, nothing about hell can be proven. The idea and its opposite may be true.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah, that's an interesting response. It's like: Wait, let me get some retribution in before we annihilate. I definitely think annihilation makes more sense than ECT; it's more merciful.

.... well, I hope I don't sound like a sadist, then, if I say that my repost to my former pastor was my effort to get some hermeneutics in against his retribution rather than some axiology.

I think what your saying makes sense, especially if we recognize that the idea of an "eternal soul" is more a Greek idea than one natural to 1st century Judeans. We are not eternal beings. We might be everlasting, but definitely not eternal. And, perhaps we don't have to be everlasting, either.

It'd be interesting to see if Hitler really wants in on either the everlasting or the eternal side of things when he finds out that he won't be at the helm of the Kingdom ...

... I mean, some people really are hard to please.

 

[Andrewn]

Whatever being in Christ means beyond that, it must be that all things are already in him in some significant sense.

Some theologians think that all people are in Christ. But, even if we uphold this view, it is clear that not all remain in Christ.

Joh 15:5 I am the vine; you are the branches. The one who remains in me and I in him produces much fruit, because you can do nothing without me. 6 If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers. They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

So, either way you look at it, not all people are in Christ.

Perhaps "punishment" is not divine wrath being poured out, as if God just can't help himself, but the experience of not reaching the telos for which one is created (as some have already indicated).

I agree.

It depends on how much of "me" is of God and how much is contrary to God. To enter the divine presence, we need to be as much like God as possible, i.e. be a developed/mature image of the divine. If I enter the divine presence and my "self" is a construct, foreign to what is good, beautiful, and true, then I will experience the loss of the illusory self I thought I was. That's got to hurt lol.

This is what I think, also. Except that I suspect in some cases, hopefully not too many, once the self with its impurities is excised, nothing is left: this is annihilation.

 

[public hermit]

once the self with its impurities is excised, nothing is left: this is annihilation

I wonder about that, too. It's scary to think there might be people walking the earth that under those circumstances would be nothing.

 

[Clare73]

I often consult the Catholic Encyclopedia but had not read this article before. Thank you for suggesting it. The Catholic Church is certainly a lot bigger than any one individual and is able to keep different ideas in proper perspective.

Of course, God is immortal. But the Bible says that other creatures are not
1Ti 6:16 He alone is immortal and dwells in unapproachable light. No one has seen him or is able to do so. To him be honor and everlasting power. Amen.

The Bible is saying that he alone has immortality in himself, we receive our immortality from him.

Likewise, NT teaching presents a time interval between the death and resurrection of our bodies
wherein we are naked without our bodies (2 Corinthians 5:1-4).
So what is naked after our death and without its body until the resurrection?
It is our immortal spirit, which did not die with its body and is alive during that interval.

And then there is to be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord (Philippians 1:21-23).
What becomes present with Christ when Paul departs (dies)?. . .not his body. . .it's his immortal spirit.
Nor is it referring to the resurrection, for we are not departed (absent) from, but in our bodies when we are with Christ at the resurrection.

The Bible does not say that human spirits are not immortal, but presents just the opposite.

Better than ECT? There are many ideas around the world, inside and outside Christianity and they do not contradict the Bible. Examples: A purgatory for all people (not just for Catholics w/ venial sin). Post-mortem education of some sort. Some form of metempsychosis. Annihilationism. A world where all people can see God. Etc.

It sounds like almost the opposite of the EO idea of hell being the love and grace of God experienced as intolerable fire by the lost. You're right, nothing about hell can be proven. The idea and its opposite may be true.

 

[Oleaster]

It's good to know we agree that salvation is through faith, not by works

Have you tasted sass? Like barbecue sass? To me it’s vinegary. Anyway, we agree that salvation is by faith, and I believe a certain class of works is utterly excluded. But I doubt you and I are fully agreed, and I’m okay with that.

If anyone is saved, it must certainly be by Christ, through a perfectly free gift and act of His mercy, and there shall be nothing to boast about but His mercy. However, in the event that I myself arrive at heaven, I hope the faith that gets me there shall have been a faith working by love (Gal 5:6), and that faith will cease at the point at which I’m finally and utterly saved.

Saint Paul said of faith, hope, and love that love is “the greatest” (1 Cor 13:13). That’s because, if anyone sees heaven, that soul shall arrive at God, and God is love (1 Jn 4:8). If we arrive at the fullness of perfectly infinite and eternal love, then we shall no longer need faith or hope, for faith and hope in this lifetime is a faith and hope in that love. And while love is a person (God) and a community of persons (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) in communion with others (His Church), love also works. By its very nature, love is constantly overflowing into infinity, even while remaining at rest.

Hence, with all due respect to faith and hope, I prefer to think of myself as being saved by love, if indeed I am being saved. Now according to the myriad translators whose translation was approved by King James I of England (whose love is beyond all doubt on account of all the swords and guns and canons that he loved), Jesus is reported in the Gospel of Saint John to have said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (Jn 14:15). His “first and great commandment” is to love God with literally all our being (Mt 22:36-38) “and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mt 22:39).

Now love is no mere word. Love works, revealing itself in action, especially in the action of Christ. And since God is love, it is clear that I cannot possibly love Him or myself or my neighbor unless He comes to me and works in me. If God does come to me and work in me, then He will presumably save somebody - if not me personally, then surely He will save at least somebody whom He loves and serves through me, for there can be no greater act of love than to save a soul from misery and sin and death.

If, on the other hand, love does not save me or at least save somebody, then it cannot possibly be because He failed to work towards that goal. Infinite and eternal love must be infinitely and eternally working to redeem all creation, drawing all things into itself. Thus, if I am being saved, it must be due entirely to the free action of love, to whom I mysteriously surrender and open myself and allow to love me and love others through me, and I will praise and thank Him eternally for His entirely free gift of grace.

If I am not being saved, then it must be because I reject love. Love must have created me as a free agent and given me the potential to resist His action. Hence, I will not scream and kick and cry and pitch an eternal tantrum in hell, because hell will simply be the final state that I create in my own soul by turning from love. I’m willing to take responsibility for my own refusal to love. In fact, if I end up in hell (which I don’t think is an actual place, but is rather a state of absence, just as heaven is not a literal city with pearly gates and streets of gold but is God Himself), well, I hope to still praise God in that “lake of fire,” because He created me freely and gave me everything necessary to discover Him and to love Him and to love His creation, and I feel thankful just to have the opportunity. (Thank You, Jesus!) And guess what? Praising God is about as close to heaven as I have come in this life, so even hell could be a kind of heaven for me, just so long as I praise Him.

I see Jesus as the perfect revelation of love, and I want to love Him by keeping His commandments, loving Him and myself and others. I trust that He has revealed Himself freely to me, not so much by the testimony of words from the witnesses who wrote the Bible, although theirs is a mighty testimony, but by the testimony of His Church as a whole. I believe He has given me faith to hope in Him and trust that He really is love, and really does love me personally, and really has caused me to want to love Him in return and to love myself and others. And I find in His Church all the graces necessary to sustain this faith, hope, and love for Him and myself and others. So I stay close to His Church and encourage everyone to come in and stay close.

Now if you want to think of yourself as being saved by faith alone, and grace alone, according to the Bible alone, in some sort of love that is not working, well, okay. That is fine by me. I encourage you to enjoy your faith and grace and Bible for as long as it lasts. Nevertheless, if your faith is true, then you must eventually arrive at infinite and eternal love. And if you do, then His Church will be with Him and in Him, and I hope that I will be there too, to share Him with you. But if I’m not, oh well, it’s my own fault. I’m still glad that you will be there, and I thank Him for saving you. (Thank You, Lord, for saving all souls whom You have purposed to save.)

The word "penance" is nowhere in Scripture.

The word penance is definitely in versions of scripture that I look at. Perhaps you could try different translations. There is free software called e-Sword (free, but you can donate if you want) that offers loads of translations. They all have pros and cons. In a real sense, the Greek-speaking East has an advantage over us with regards to the Bible because they need no translation. I lean most on the DRV, because its source is the Vulgate, which the Roman Church has officially adopted. But I enjoy looking at different translations, including the Latin, as well as the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It all helps towards grasping a fuller sense of meaning.

The word in Revelation 2:5 (Gr: metanoeo) is "repent;" i.e., to change one's mind or purpose;
to turn, from sin and to obedience.

To turn from sin to obedience is to do penance. And who would a Christian in Ephesus obey except the Lord and His bishop? Or how could a Christian in Ephesus obey but by hearing and responding to the Lord’s voice in His Church? (Again, these are rhetorical questions. No need to reply.)

The Lord said, "Repent (change, turn) and do the things you did at first."
Evidently the love they had at first for one another and/or Christ had grown cold.
Their growth in sanctification had stalled, or even reversed.
They are commanded to turn back to it, loving others and/or Christ as they had before.

If they are going to turn back and love others and/or Christ, then surely they must perform works of charity. Or are they just supposed to say “I love you Jesus, and I love all you people” and then take a nap or perhaps make tents all day or something? That’s rhetorical. And I guess the first rhetorical question remains: why is the Lord concerned with their works? You did’t explain why. Or am I in the heart of your explanation now?

Don't see anything about "faith to be renewed" in the text.
Not sure what "a revival service" would have to do with it.

Being playful. You know, like I could say penance shmenance... and vinegary spinach... and muh Bible, and muh best and most reliable translation(s) from muh original languages and most trustworthy manuscripts, and muh Strong’s concordance with muh handy mouse-over feature, and especially what muh prophet Hephzechahabalikihael dun sayed back yonder in 222 BC in his tooty-toof chapter and tooty-toof verse: “a merciless and fiery brimstones upon them thar cities, Denvertika and Walla Wallatia, for verily hath they burnt much incense upon a golden statue of Camel as passeth she through the Eyes of Pine Needle with smoldering blast furnace and costly gas imported from Magog and dour spices and fine raiment! How art thou fallen like a morsel into a vat of hot sass, O Sackoribs! Repent therefore (yet do ye no penance)!” (Hpzcl 22:22) And also whatever Muhamad sayeth in his tooty-toof surah. Muhamad and Muhbuddha and Muhdollylamo.

"Responding (i.e., working) toward their sanctification" is the repentance; i.e., changing/turning being commanded here.

Can anyone be sanctified without being saved, or saved without being sanctified? (Rhetorical)

Are you thinking I am not in agreement with Revelation 2:5?

I’d given no thought as to whether or not you are “in agreement” with Revelation 2:5. I was wondering what might happen if you were to meditate on the passage from 2:1-7, why you would think God is concerned with works there. I still don’t think I know your answer, but I guess you think the Lord wants the Ephesians to sanctify themselves by a love that does not work, or else he’ll do away with them. Okay. Again, it was a purely rhetorical question. God bless you. I have a tent to make now, and afterwards a long nap.

 

[Clare73]

Have you tasted sass? Like barbecue sass? To me it’s vinegary. Anyway, we agree that salvation is by faith, and I believe a certain class of works is utterly excluded. But I doubt you and I are fully agreed, and I’m okay with that.

If anyone is saved, it must certainly be by Christ, through a perfectly free gift and act of His mercy, and there shall be nothing to boast about but His mercy. However, in the event that I myself arrive at heaven, I hope the faith that gets me there shall have been a faith working by love (Gal 5:6), and that faith will cease at the point at which I’m finally and utterly saved.

Saint Paul said of faith, hope, and love that love is “the greatest” (1 Cor 13:13). That’s because, if anyone sees heaven, that soul shall arrive at God, and God is love (1 Jn 4:8). If we arrive at the fullness of perfectly infinite and eternal love, then we shall no longer need faith or hope, for faith and hope in this lifetime is a faith and hope in that love. And while love is a person (God) and a community of persons (Father, Son, Holy Ghost) in communion with others (His Church), love also works. By its very nature, love is constantly overflowing into infinity, even while remaining at rest.

Hence, with all due respect to faith and hope, I prefer to think of myself as being saved by love, if indeed I am being saved. Now according to the myriad translators whose translation was approved by King James I of England (whose love is beyond all doubt on account of all the swords and guns and canons that he loved), Jesus is reported in the Gospel of Saint John to have said, “If ye love me, keep my commandments” (Jn 14:15). His “first and great commandment” is to love God with literally all our being (Mt 22:36-38) “and the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself” (Mt 22:39).

Now love is no mere word. Love works, revealing itself in action, especially in the action of Christ. And since God is love, it is clear that I cannot possibly love Him or myself or my neighbor unless He comes to me and works in me. If God does come to me and work in me, then He will presumably save somebody - if not me personally, then surely He will save at least somebody whom He loves and serves through me, for there can be no greater act of love than to save a soul from misery and sin and death.

If, on the other hand, love does not save me or at least save somebody, then it cannot possibly be because He failed to work towards that goal. Infinite and eternal love must be infinitely and eternally working to redeem all creation, drawing all things into itself. Thus, if I am being saved, it must be due entirely to the free action of love, to whom I mysteriously surrender and open myself and allow to love me and love others through me, and I will praise and thank Him eternally for His entirely free gift of grace.

If I am not being saved, then it must be because I reject love. Love must have created me as a free agent and given me the potential to resist His action. Hence, I will not scream and kick and cry and pitch an eternal tantrum in hell, because hell will simply be the final state that I create in my own soul by turning from love. I’m willing to take responsibility for my own refusal to love. In fact, if I end up in hell (which I don’t think is an actual place, but is rather a state of absence, just as heaven is not a literal city with pearly gates and streets of gold but is God Himself), well, I hope to still praise God in that “lake of fire,” because He created me freely and gave me everything necessary to discover Him and to love Him and to love His creation, and I feel thankful just to have the opportunity. (Thank You, Jesus!) And guess what? Praising God is about as close to heaven as I have come in this life, so even hell could be a kind of heaven for me, just so long as I praise Him.

I see Jesus as the perfect revelation of love, and I want to love Him by keeping His commandments, loving Him and myself and others. I trust that He has revealed Himself freely to me, not so much by the testimony of words from the witnesses who wrote the Bible, although theirs is a mighty testimony, but by the testimony of His Church as a whole.

But let me add that to get a more full understanding and appreciation of the mind of God, one needs the full Biblical testimony to him.
Apart from it, ours is a more partial and less complete one. . .and that matters.

I believe He has given me faith to hope in Him and trust that He really is love, and really does love me personally, and really has caused me to want to love Him in return and to love myself and others. And I find in His Church all the graces necessary to sustain this faith, hope, and love for Him and myself and others. So I stay close to His Church and encourage everyone to come in and stay close.
Now if you want to think of yourself as being saved by faith alone, and grace alone, according to the Bible alone, in some sort of love that is not working, well, okay.

That's called a strawman. . .assignation of an easily refutable argument not presented in defense of anything.

According to the Bible, faith which does not work is not true faith, it is counterfeit faith (Matthew 7:21-23; Luke 8:13) which does not save.

That is fine by me. I encourage you to enjoy your faith and grace and Bible for as long as it lasts. Nevertheless, if your faith is true, then you must eventually arrive at infinite and eternal love. And if you do, then His Church will be with Him and in Him, and I hope that I will be there too, to share Him with you. But if I’m not, oh well, it’s my own fault. I’m still glad that you will be there, and I thank Him for saving you. (Thank You, Lord, for saving all souls whom You have purposed to save.)

The word penance is definitely in versions of scripture that I look at. Perhaps you could try different translations

And yet, it is nowhere in the Greek manuscripts, even of the OT.
That might bear some looking into regarding any doctrine you believe which is based on it.

There is free software called e-Sword (free, but you can donate if you want)
that offers loads of translations.

"Penance" is not about translations, it is about even existing in the Greek manuscripts that it be translated.
It is not there. . .just as the word "sovereign" or "Trinity" does not exist in the Scriptures.

They all have pros and cons. In a real sense, the Greek-speaking East has an advantage over us with regards to the Bible because they need no translation. I lean most on the DRV, because its source is the Vulgate, which the Roman Church has officially adopted. But I enjoy looking at different translations, including the Latin, as well as the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. It all helps towards grasping a fuller sense of meaning.
To turn from sin to obedience is to do penance. And who would a Christian in Ephesus obey except the Lord and His bishop?

His flesh. . .

Or how could a Christian in Ephesus obey but by hearing and responding to the Lord’s voice in His Church?

The Lord's voice being the written word of God read aloud, right?

(Again, these are rhetorical questions. No need to reply.)

Too late, already did. . .

If they are going to turn back and love others and/or Christ, then surely they must perform works of charity. Or are they just supposed to say “I love you Jesus, and I love all you people” and then take a nap or perhaps make tents all day or something? That’s rhetorical. And I guess the first rhetorical question remains: why is the Lord concerned with their works? You did’t explain why. Or am I in the heart of your explanation now?

Obedience in the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of true faith, which leads to righteousness leading to holiness (Romans 6:16, Romans 6:19). And
"Without holiness, no one will see the Lord." (Hebrews 12:14)

Being playful. You know, like I could say penance shmenance... and vinegary spinach... and muh Bible, and muh best and most reliable translation(s) from muh original languages and most trustworthy manuscripts, and muh Strong’s concordance with muh handy mouse-over feature, and especially what muh prophet Hephzechahabalikihael dun sayed back yonder in 222 BC in his tooty-toof chapter and tooty-toof verse: “a merciless and fiery brimstones upon them thar cities, Denvertika and Walla Wallatia, for verily hath they burnt much incense upon a golden statue of Camel as passeth she through the Eyes of Pine Needle with smoldering blast furnace and costly gas imported from Magog and dour spices and fine raiment! How art thou fallen like a morsel into a vat of hot sass, O Sackoribs! Repent therefore (yet do ye no penance)!” (Hpzcl 22:22) And also whatever Muhamad sayeth in his tooty-toof surah. Muhamad and Muhbuddha and Muhdollylamo.

STOP! . . I can't breathe!
I like you too much already.

Can anyone be sanctified without being saved, or saved without being sanctified? (Rhetorical)

Nope. . .true faith which alone saves always has works of obedience, or it is not true faith and therefore, does not save.

"As Dad was told by Mother, 'You can't have one without the other.' "
(love and marriage, that is)

I’d given no thought as to whether or not you are “in agreement” with Revelation 2:5. I was wondering what might happen if you were to meditate on the passage from 2:1-7, why you would think God is concerned with works there. I still don’t think I know your answer, but I guess you think the Lord wants the Ephesians to sanctify themselves by a love that does not work, or else he’ll do away with them. Okay. Again, it was a purely rhetorical question. God bless you. I have a tent to make now, and afterwards a long nap.

I think perhaps you misunderstand me.

Faith alone saves, faith's necessary works do not save.
Salvation is the Lord's! . . .And no one else's! . . .His and his alone!
So that no one can have anything about which he could boast (Romans 4:2, 1 Corinthians 1:29; Ephesians 2:9).
Man's works of faith do not save.
Those works simply demonstrate that the faith is true and, therefore, does save.

 

[Cormack]

Anselm: Anselm argues the sin is not only disobedience, but it also dishonors God.

Calvin: Calvin, ever the lawyer, said sin makes us criminals, essentially.

Ray Comforts view on this is great fun too. “Have you ever stolen something?” Yes. “What do we call someone who steals things? A criminal!”

While I can’t think of myself as a criminal in my thirties, not because I stole a race car or a fistful of sweeties from the corner shop at the age of five. People are constitutionally different after certain experiences or stages of growth in this life.

To me, liars or robbers are people who I can’t trust not to lie or steal, they’re liars and thieves in a habitual sense, not because they ever did the act in their lives.

Metanoia is what it means to repent, meta meaning change and noia to mean mind, literally “change mind.”

Is divine punishment necessary? If so, why?

Punishment can often be the catalyst for transformation, coming from a home where corporal punishment was used rather liberally I can confirm it has its own corrective properties.

Parents and authority figures are sometimes guilty of misusing their powers of correction, I’m certain that’s not an issue for God the Father however.

If high things like listening to Beethoven or reading Crime and Punishment could correct every wayward sinner, I’m sure God would use those means, rather than working through something more drastic like the cross, purgatory or hellfire.

 

[public hermit]

If high things like listening to Beethoven or reading Crime and Punishment could correct every wayward sinner, I’m sure God would use those means, rather than working through something more drastic like the cross, purgatory or hellfire

Would you say the fire of hell is retributive or cathartic?

 

[Eloy Craft]

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.

What if you didn't choose good? What if it's good because you did it? I think that freedom allows for the existence of divine emotion.

 

[Hmm]

If anyone does not remain in me, he is thrown aside like a branch and he withers.

Withers but perhaps doesn't die.

They gather them, throw them into the fire, and they are burned.

Burned but not necessarily burning eternally.

So, either way you look at it, not all people are in Christ.

That's true. Many and probably most of us aren't but that's not to say that we won't be one day.

It seems that Team Hell are trying to hijack the language so that you can't have the word "fire" and "separation" without also having the word "everlasting". I'm guilty of the same thing I guess because I can't think of the words "Team Hell" without also thinking of the word "absurd".

 

[Cormack]

Would you say the fire of hell is retributive or cathartic?

Corrective. Although if I had to pick between either retributive or cathartic punishment, cathartic sounds like a terrible idea.

I can’t imagine God needs some kind of therapy or emotional release, a kind only gained by pouring out wrath upon men, women and children.

Retribution and reform are more in line with what I believe a just, loving God would act out, like how a just society locks people up with a mind to punish the criminal, protect the law abiding, and (we hope) rehabilitate the wicked ones of evil habits.