Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[sawdust]

Surely you aren't making fun of or denying God's word written. . .

No, you're the one giving me a good laugh.

How does 2 Timothy 2:12-13 answer the question:

Can you show from Scripture including James 1:14-15, how this particular evil (rejecting Christ)
is not sin?

.

I already did and you didn't understand what I said. It's not a "particular evil", evil is evil. To reject the truth and replace it with a lie is evil. Out from evil comes all the different types of sin. Adam's rejection of God's word and believing the serpents lie was evil. The sin that rose from that evil was to eat the fruit. All of us are culpable of evil, usually out of ignorance. You only need look at all the disagreements on the forum. Everyone can't be right. Some (and I include myself) are rejecting the truth when it is shown them at times. It's why we continue to study, discuss, think and search so that we leave no stone unturned in finding the truth. Of course, it goes without saying, that must be done in the filling of the Spirit.

I'm not inclined to continue discussing with you Clare as so far you have misunderstood, misconstrued, made assumptions and taken what I have said out of context. I don't see any benefit in persisting at this time.

Have a nice day.

 

[Andrewn]

Well, that assessment serves well enough. So now all you have to do is show robust Scriptural support for the notion that one party is not resurrected to life, and the other to death, but that they are resurrected to another choice, apparently neither one of them now a slave to sin.

You may have noted that you have just now counted value in those who will be relegated to the Lake of Fire. Is there any value to any of us apart from God, particularly, considering that he has entirely withdrawn all graces from those in the LOF?

No, this is not a fair objection. Before the resurrection and the LOF, there is an intermediate state, Hades for unbelievers. @Hmm has presented the example of Harrowing the Hell as an example of post-mortem progression before the resurrection of the body. Then the ball is in your court to prove that there is no way out of Hades.

 

[Hmm]

No, this is not a fair objection. Before the resurrection and the LOF, there is an intermediate state, Hades for unbelievers. @Hmm has presented the example of Harrowing the Hell as an example of post-mortem progression before the resurrection of the body. Then the ball is in your court to prove that there is no way out of Hades.

I have a feeling that the Harrowing of Hell is something of an inconvenience in protestant circles. I'd never heard of it before joining this forum and I've even spoken to a couple of ministers who hadn't either. I also wasn't aware of the distinctions between Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus and I suspect this is hardly ever taught in most protestant churches - Dante's hell is usually all we need.

 

[Saint Steven]

The usual —the Jew/Gentile thing, and like it, "do you know anyone whose sins are taken care of some other way?"

But you claimed that there were some for whom forgiveness was not provided. (which you also claimed was not withheld) Quote below.

Saint Steven said: ↑
What do you make of this?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

ALL have sinned and fallen short. ALL are under the condemnation. But he had mercy on those to whom he chose for his own. Forgiveness is not withheld; it was never theirs.

 

[Saint Steven]

I have a feeling that the Harrowing of Hell is something of an inconvenience in protestant circles. I'd never heard of it before joining this forum and I've even spoken to a couple of ministers who hadn't either. I also wasn't aware of the distinctions between Hades, Gehenna and Tartarus and I suspect this is hardly ever taught in most protestant churches - Dante's hell is usually all we need.

I have heard them reason that there were some who were already saved, just waiting for the resurrection to exit Hades. That not everyone was led forth.

 

[Andrewn]

I have a feeling that the Harrowing of Hell is something of an inconvenience in protestant circles. I'd never heard of it before joining this forum and I've even spoken to a couple of ministers who hadn't either.

Although the Harrowing of Hell is taught by the Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed, and Orthodox traditions, a number of Christians reject the doctrine of the "harrowing of hell", claiming that "there is scant scriptural evidence for [it], and that Jesus's own words contradict it".

So, Protestants accept the idea and in Anglican churches we used to recite the Apostles' Creed, which includes reference to this belief. It's really neo-Protestants, those who reject infant baptism and the real presence in the eucharist who tend to interpret the Bible ignoring tradition.

 

[Saint Steven]

Although the Harrowing of Hell is taught by the Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed, and Orthodox traditions, a number of Christians reject the doctrine of the "harrowing of hell", claiming that "there is scant scriptural evidence for [it], and that Jesus's own words contradict it".

Good point.
I was thinking about that as well.
"descended into hell" and even "rose from the grave", which I see as a reference to "The Grave", as in Hades/Sheol. Jesus was laid in an above ground tomb. He didn't rise from a hole in the ground. And the reference to Jonah is telling as well. Where is "the heart of the earth"? (realm of the dead)

Matthew 12:40 NRSV
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.

 

[Mark Quayle]

It is worth noticing that you probably do not understand punishment at all, divine or otherwise.



(1) is simply misleading. Punishment and healing are two different things. When we punish someone we are not healing them and when we heal someone we are not punishing them. The "paying of the debt" is precisely what is cathartic, not some separate act of healing, but the catharsis comes through satisfaction, not simple retribution. Thus the catharsis is a byproduct of freely accepting and undergoing deserved punishment. Paradoxically, if the malefactor is only seeking the relief of catharsis and is not making satisfaction, they will not even receive catharsis.

Regarding (3), deterrence does of course affect the one being punished, and probably more than anyone else. Nevertheless, deterrence without desert and retribution begs the question of why the sin was wrong in the first place. It would be circular to say that we deter because the sin is evil, and we know the sin is evil because of deterrence.

I've been handing this out often of late, but it looks like you should read it too: C.S. Lewis' "The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment."

In general, I like your post very much. Thanks.

But here, you say,
"Regarding (3), deterrence does of course affect the one being punished, and probably more than anyone else. Nevertheless, deterrence without desert and retribution begs the question of why the sin was wrong in the first place. It would be circular to say that we deter because the sin is evil, and we know the sin is evil because of deterrence." What are you referring to, by "deterrence"? Deterrence from, or of, what?

I suppose I should ask it of @public hermit who first mentioned it, since you are referring to his point #3, but I don't understand what he meant there, either. —deterrence of evil, how? @public hermit Are you referring to the function of punishment in convincing the sinner or onlookers of the inadvisability of continued sin? Because, if so, then, @zippy2006 your response to #3 sounds odd to me. How is punishment that kind of deterrence if it is not deserved punishment, nor retributive?

I don't mean to criticize here, but just to follow the conversation.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Although the Harrowing of Hell is taught by the Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed, and Orthodox traditions, a number of Christians reject the doctrine of the "harrowing of hell", claiming that "there is scant scriptural evidence for [it], and that Jesus's own words contradict it".

So, Protestants accept the idea and in Anglican churches we used to recite the Apostles' Creed, which includes reference to this belief. It's really neo-Protestants, those who reject infant baptism and the real presence in the eucharist who tend to interpret the Bible ignoring tradition.

Good point.
I was thinking about that as well.
"descended into hell" and even "rose from the grave", which I see as a reference to "The Grave", as in Hades/Sheol. Jesus was laid in an above ground tomb. He didn't rise from a hole in the ground. And the reference to Jonah is telling as well. Where is "the heart of the earth"? (realm of the dead)

Matthew 12:40 NRSV
For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so for three days and three nights the Son of Man will be in the heart of the earth.

According to Google:

Har·row·ing of Hell
DEFINITION
(in medieval Christian theology) the defeat of the powers of evil and the release of its victims by the descent of Christ into hell after his death.

If that is accurate, then, (and maybe I am wrong, somehow), that is NOT something taught by Reformed tradition, and certainly not current reformed theology. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding who (and where) these 'victims' are, before their release.

Certainly, Reformed Theology teaches that Christ literally paid, in the same kind (way) as the redeemed would have paid, for the sins of the elect. But to say that in hell he released the victims of evil (i.e. those who died unforgiven) by his descent into hell, is not even how the reformed think, at least, not that I'm aware of. And I mean you no insult by saying that sounds more like something a universalist would come up with.

 

[public hermit]

In general, I like your post very much. Thanks.

But here, you say,
"Regarding (3), deterrence does of course affect the one being punished, and probably more than anyone else. Nevertheless, deterrence without desert and retribution begs the question of why the sin was wrong in the first place. It would be circular to say that we deter because the sin is evil, and we know the sin is evil because of deterrence." What are you referring to, by "deterrence"? Deterrence from, or of, what?

I suppose I should ask it of @public hermit who first mentioned it, since you are referring to his point #3, but I don't understand what he meant there, either. —deterrence of evil, how? @public hermit Are you referring to the function of punishment in convincing the sinner or onlookers of the inadvisability of continued sin? Because, if so, then, @zippy2006 your response to #3 sounds odd to me. How is punishment that kind of deterrence if it is not deserved punishment, nor retributive?

I don't mean to criticize here, but just to follow the conversation.

I don't know how deterrence functions for the one being punished unless they have another chance to avoid punishment, which is not the case for eternal punishment. If they have another chance, the threat of further punishment could, perhaps, function as a deterrent.

Right? Punishment is not a deterrent for the one being punished because the threat has become a reality.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I don't know how deterrence functions for the one being punished unless they have another chance to avoid punishment, which is not the case for eternal punishment. If they have another chance, the threat of further punishment could, perhaps, function as a deterrent.

Right? Punishment is not a deterrent for the one being punished because the threat has become a reality.

I'm thinking in terms of deterrent against future acts. When I was a child, and I had hit or bit my brother, my parents' spanking me for what I had done, was certainly a deterrent against doing that particular 'crime' again.

 

[public hermit]

I'm thinking in terms of deterrent against future acts. When I was a child, and I had hit or bit my brother, my parents' spanking me for what I had done, was certainly a deterrent against doing that particular 'crime' again.

Okay, my misunderstanding. Yeah, that makes sense. I think my initial mention of deterrence was that punishment did not have that function for those enduring eternal punishment, for obvious reasons already stated.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Okay, my misunderstanding. Yeah, that makes sense. I think my initial mention of deterrence was that punishment did not have that function for those enduring eternal punishment, for obvious reasons already stated.

Ha, yes, that is certainly logical! Those in the LOF certainly will be unable to avoid the LOF! The fish on the hook doesn't gain much by changing his mind about the worm.

 

[Andrewn]

If that is accurate, then, (and maybe I am wrong, somehow), that is NOT something taught by Reformed tradition, and certainly not current reformed theology. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding who (and where) these 'victims' are, before their release.

Certainly, Reformed Theology teaches that Christ literally paid, in the same kind (way) as the redeemed would have paid, for the sins of the elect. But to say that in hell he released the victims of evil (i.e. those who died unforgiven) by his descent into hell, is not even how the reformed think, at least, not that I'm aware of. And I mean you no insult by saying that sounds more like something a universalist would come up with.

How else were OT saints saved? Or do you think they were already in Paradise before Christ's sacrifice?

But let's forget about Harrowing of Hell for the moment. What biblical evidence do you have that people could not be released from Hades?

 

[Mark Quayle]

How else were OT saints saved? Or do you think they were already in Paradise before Christ's sacrifice?

But let's forget about Harrowing of Hell for the moment. What biblical evidence do you have that people could not be released from Hades?

I call myself Reformed because that 'system' most closely resembles what I believe. But since you asked what I believe, and not what Reformed Theology teaches: I think after death, there is no time, as we experience it. Once in Heaven we will not see others arrive before nor after us, perhaps not even to see arrival at all, but to simply be there, like waking up from a dream, that this temporal life will seem like at that point.

Normally, a person doesn't ask another to show evidence for a negative, without first at least showing evidence for the opposing positive. A negative is harder to show evidence for. What Biblical evidence do you have that people will be released from Hades? The only direct mention of such a thing that comes to mind right off, is not concerning an act of Christ in making such a thing possible, but the fact of "the sea, and the death and the grave gave up the dead that were in them", in order to be judged.

(Strangely enough, if I understood your earlier posting correctly, you and I are both opposed to the notion that you now ask me to defeat!)

 

[Clare73]

I call myself Reformed because that 'system' most closely resembles what I believe. But since you asked what I believe, and not what Reformed Theology teaches: I think after death, there is no time, as we experience it. Once in Heaven we will not see others arrive before nor after us, perhaps not even to see arrival at all, but to simply be there, like waking up from a dream, that this temporal life will seem like at that point.

Normally, a person doesn't ask another to show evidence for a negative, without first at least showing evidence for the opposing positive. A negative is harder to show evidence for. What Biblical evidence do you have that people will be released from Hades?

The only direct mention of such a thing that comes to mind right off, is not concerning an act of Christ in making such a thing possible, but the fact of "the sea, and
the death and the grave gave up the dead that were in them", in order to be judged.

In Jewish belief, was Sheol not simply death, grave, the holding place of the dead, made up of Paradise (Abraham's bosom) and Hades, as Jesus illustrated in Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31)?

(Strangely enough, if I understood your earlier posting correctly, you and I are both opposed to the notion that you now ask me to defeat!)

 

[Mark Quayle]

In Jewish belief, was Sheol not simply death, grave, the holding place of the dead, made up of Paradise (Abraham's bosom) and Hades, as Jesus illustrated in Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19-31)?

Yes. To my thinking, God uses some of that wording as a bow to the mentality of the day, (like what an anthropomorphism in God's wording of things does with/for our thinking), to help us accept that timegap we see between death and resurrection. To me it is specially obvious in the traditional concept of "soulsleep".

Btw, and for whatever it is worth, I don't take parables as direct doctrinally sound descriptions of the logistics or mechanics of God's economy, heaven, hell or other principles such as choice, salvation, etc. They use language the hearer understood at the time the parable was given, to teach a concept: in the case of the Lazarus and the rich man story, for example, I have no reason to believe that it teaches the lost can see across a chasm the happiness of the found, nor that Abraham holds any particular authority, nor that there will be speaking across some chasm, but only that God chooses whom God will, and that beautiful and painful riddle, that even if one were to come back from the dead, the lost will not believe.

 

[Andrewn]

I think after death, there is no time, as we experience it. Once in Heaven we will not see others arrive before nor after us, perhaps not even to see arrival at all, but to simply be there, like waking up from a dream, that this temporal life will seem like at that point.

This sounds like belief in soul sleep. It opposes the parable of Rich & Lazarus, the Lord's promise to the repentant thief, and Paul's certainty that he would be with Christ immediately after death. But this is a different conversation and, certainly, if there is no intermediate conscious state, as you say, then there is no chance of repentance after death.

Normally, a person doesn't ask another to show evidence for a negative, without first at least showing evidence for the opposing positive. A negative is harder to show evidence for.

I agree. And there are no NT passages to indicate that Hades is permanent. Rather, we know from Revelation that it is not a permanent state, as you mentioned.

What Biblical evidence do you have that people will be released from Hades?

My evidence comes from 1Pe 3:19-20, 1Pe 4:6, Rom 10:6-8, Eph 4:8-9, and Rev 1:18. Reformed do believe that the Lord descended into Hades. But, you're right, Calvin believed that He descended in humiliation rather than in victory (as Catholics and Orthodox believe).

(Strangely enough, if I understood your earlier posting correctly, you and I are both opposed to the notion that you now ask me to defeat!)

I believe that people may repent in the intermediate state. This is based on EO interpretation of the verses above. I hope this is right but I do understand that it's a matter of speculation.

 

[Clare73]

Yes. To my thinking, God uses some of that wording as a bow to the mentality of the day, (like what an anthropomorphism in God's wording of things does with/for our thinking), to help us accept that timegap we see between death and resurrection. To me it is specially obvious in the traditional concept of "soulsleep". Btw, and for whatever it is worth,
I don't take parables as direct doctrinally sound descriptions of the logistics or mechanics of God's economy, heaven, hell or other principles such as choice, salvation, etc.

Do you have any in mind apart from Luke 16 for me to review?

They use language the hearer understood at the time the parable was given, to teach a concept: in the case of the Lazarus and the rich man story, for example, I have no reason to believe that it teaches the lost can see across a chasm the happiness of the found, nor that Abraham holds any particular authority, nor that there will be speaking across some chasm, but only that God chooses whom God will,

and that beautiful and painful riddle, that even if one were to come back from the dead, the lost will not believe.

And I see that as illustrating the hardened hearts of the Jews who did not believe even when Jesus rose from the dead.

 

[Clare73]

This sounds like belief in soul sleep. It opposes the parable of Rich & Lazarus,
the Lord's promise to the repentant thief,
and Paul's certainty that he would be with Christ immediately after death.

My understanding also.

But this is a different conversation and, certainly, if there is no intermediate conscious state, as you say, then there is no chance of repentance after death.

I agree. And there are no NT passages to indicate that Hades is permanent. Rather, we know from Revelation that it is not a permanent state, as you mentioned.

My evidence comes from 1Pe 3:19-20, 1Pe 4:6, Rom 10:6-8, Eph 4:8-9, and Rev 1:18. Reformed do believe that the Lord descended into Hades.

I see 1 Peter 3:19-20, 4:6 as Christ in his preincarnate state when he went and preached through Noah to the wicked generation of that time.

I see Romans 10:6-8 as explaining the nature of righteousness by faith, that it does not require extraordinary works such as bringing Christ down from heaven or up from the grave.
I do not see it as an actual event.

I see Ephesians 4:8-9 as referring to Christ's ascension on high (leading captive those who had taken others captive) from the lower (below heaven) earthly regions of his incarnation, death and resurrection.
I don't see any of them as referring to Hades.

But, you're right, Calvin believed that He descended in humiliation rather than in victory (as Catholics and Orthodox believe).


I believe that people may repent in the intermediate state. This is based on EO interpretation of the verses above. I hope this is right but I do understand that it's a matter of speculation.