Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[zippy2006]

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

You're welcome.

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?

You correctly identify it here:

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 agree entirely. In the post that you are responding to, #300, I said, "deterrence without desert and retribution begs the question of why the sin was wrong in the first place." I would say that a (retributive) punishment must be deserved in itself before it can function as a legitimate deterrent. C. S. Lewis also highlights this in the article I referenced in that same post.

My general point in #300 was that punishment is primarily retributive, and is only secondarily cathartic or deterrent. I therefore agree with you that a punishment which lacks deserved retribution cannot be a legitimate deterrent.

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

I am not opposed to critiques.

---------------

To @public hermit:

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.

There are several things to be said here. First, your OP does not mention eternal punishment and neglects the widespread belief in non-eternal punishment in the afterlife (i.e. "purgatory"). Second, in the OP you say that you are not only interested in divine punishments that occur in the afterlife, but that you are also interested in divine punishment "in general." Third, my post, #300, is based on the idea that you don't understand punishment at all, divine or otherwise, and is therefore about the nature of punishment in general. Fourth, post #15 to which I was responding is not presupposing eternal punishment, for you do not hold that eternal punishment is cathartic.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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.

No, I don't believe in 'soul sleep' for the very reason that I don't think there is time passage (as such) for a soul after death.

I cannot assume a parable to teach truths beyond 'the moral of the story' Jesus pointed them to. Certainly, there are things to be seen, for example, in the Rich Man and Lazarus, the point of the story is, "even if one were to return from the grave, they will not believe." But there is also the side moral, that one gets what one deserves, and particularly, that God will have mercy on whomever he choses —but even those must be reaffirmed by other Scripture (and they are). But apart from that, all we can be sure of is that Jesus was talking to Jews, using their current-at-the-time notions of what happens after death, drawing them into the story to bring the point of the story to their attention.

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

I don't see any of these as evidence that they are 'released' from Hades, and certainly not that they are converted, released from sin, forgiven, during their 'stay' in the grave.

1Pe 3:19-20 says that Christ preached to the imprisoned spirits from Noah's day. Where does that mean they were "released from Hades"?

1Pe 4:6 says that the Gospel has been preached to those who are dead (notice the time difference there?) There is no reference to where they were when preached to, nor even if they were alive at the time, but only that they are expired. Nor is there any mention of anyone being "released from Hades." Note here also, that it references the Gospel being preached, which to me necessarily implies during this temporal frame, though it does not necessarily imply it could not happen in Hades.

Rom 10:6-8 only rhetorically references Christ being brought up from the grave, with no reference at all to those who died in their sin being "released from Hades"

Ephesians 4:8-9 Says Christ took captives, and that he gave gifts to his people, and that he descended to the lower, earthly regions (which I take to mean, Hades). I agree that he descended (and resurrected from) Hades, because the prophecy (Psalm 16:10 reads, "because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead".

Rev 1:18 only reference to hell and death is that he was dead and is alive, and possesses the keys of hell and death. No reference to anyone being "released from Hades".

The closest reference among them to anyone being "released" is the fact that he has the keys. Yet the only time we see them being possibly 'released' is elsewhere talked about, when the sea, and the grave and death 'give up' the dead that are in them, to be judged according to their deeds, as sounds somewhat like 1 Peter 4:6, though, as I said, even there we do not know when they were judged by that one verse of itself, except as it says, "judged in the flesh".

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.

FWIW, my notion that there is no time passage after death does not quite negate the idea that one could repent in the intermediate state. I just don't see from Scripture, nor from reason, any good evidence that they do. I am glad you recognize speculation, and I too will admit that my notions of what timelessness within God's economy (i.e. in this reference, everything that follows death) will be like, because of who God is, must fall FAR short of the facts —enough so that to even call it timelessness introduces for the human mind concepts that are not valid. Yet I am stuck; to admit to passage of time there contradicts both philosophical reason/logic and scripture.

 

[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.

In my previous message, I wrote that if there is no intermediate conscious state, as you say, then there is no chance of repentance after death. But this doesn't have to be the case if you believe in pre-Millennialism.

It is consistent with the Bible that after the general resurrection, billions unbelievers will learn about God’s will and have a chance to conform to it. This means that a large-scale educational work will take place. In this scenario, they will be judged during the Millennium, while the people of God reign with Him.

I'm not saying that that scenario is the perfect truth. I'm only saying that it does not contradict the Bible.

I cannot assume a parable to teach truths beyond 'the moral of the story' Jesus pointed them to. Certainly, there are things to be seen, for example, in the Rich Man and Lazarus, the point of the story is, "even if one were to return from the grave, they will not believe." But there is also the side moral, that one gets what one deserves, and particularly, that God will have mercy on whomever he choses —but even those must be reaffirmed by other Scripture (and they are). But apart from that, all we can be sure of is that Jesus was talking to Jews, using their current-at-the-time notions of what happens after death, drawing them into the story to bring the point of the story to their attention.

I had discussions about this w/ SDA's and JW's before and will not get into it again. For one thing, I admire in people who believe in soul sleep or immediate resurrection that they are true sola scripture believers: while they ignore Church tradition, they take the OT literally and build their theology on the whole Bible.

 

[Clare73]

In my previous message, I wrote that if there is no intermediate conscious state, as you say, then there is no chance of repentance after death. But this doesn't have to be the case if you believe in pre-Millennialism.

It is consistent with the Bible that after the general resurrection, billions unbelievers will learn about God’s will and have a chance to conform to it.

It is consistent with personal interpretation of prophetic riddles in Revelation, which riddles are not interpreted the same way by all, the only rule being interpretation must be in agreement with NT apostolic teaching, which pre-millennialism is not.

This means that a large-scale educational work will take place. In this scenario, they will be judged during the Millennium, while the people of God reign with Him.

I'm not saying that that scenario is the perfect truth. I'm only saying that it does not contradict the Bible.


I had discussions about this w/ SDA's and JW's before and will not get into it again. For one thing, I admire in people who believe in soul sleep that they are true sola scripture believers: while they ignore Church tradition, they take the OT literally and build their theology on it.

 

[RickReads]

In my previous message, I wrote that if there is no intermediate conscious state, as you say, then there is no chance of repentance after death. But this doesn't have to be the case if you believe in pre-Millennialism.

It is consistent with the Bible that after the general resurrection, billions unbelievers will learn about God’s will and have a chance to conform to it. This means that a large-scale educational work will take place. In this scenario, they will be judged during the Millennium, while the people of God reign with Him.

I'm not saying that that scenario is the perfect truth. I'm only saying that it does not contradict the Bible.


I had discussions about this w/ SDA's and JW's before and will not get into it again. For one thing, I admire in people who believe in soul sleep or immediate resurrection that they are true sola scripture believers: while they ignore Church tradition, they take the OT literally and build their theology on the whole Bible.

The idea of a pre-trib first resurrection is unbiblical and a fairly modern opinion. As for SDA and JW there are problems with the theology of both.

 

[Andrewn]

The idea of a pre-trib first resurrection is unbiblical and a fairly modern opinion. As for SDA and JW there are problems with the theology of both.

Yes, of course there are big problems w/ dispensationalists, SDA's, and JW's. These problems are the result of ignoring Church tradition and insisting on sola scriptura, which in practice means insisting on their own interpretations, considering their own opinions to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

 

[martymonster]

God's punishment of sinners is necessary, just like it is necessary for a parent to punish the child or children they love.


Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Heb 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Heb 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Heb 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.


Sounds pretty necessary to me, but if your only concept of punishment is burning for all eternity in some literal fiery pit, well, you aren't really going to be able to see that as necessary, now are you.

 

[Mark Quayle]

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

Btw, I should mention that the parables often include things besides the main point that may be true and may parallel the 'kingdom of heaven' as Jesus introduces some of them to be like. But it is not good hermeneutics to use them as doctrinal teachings by Christ, without a lot of 'backup'.

The "workers in the field". (Matthew 20)

The "prodigal son". (Luke 15)

The "sower, the seeds and the soil". (Matthew 13) (this one I like because some of the principles within it are introduced and defined by Jesus as truly being representative of this or that thing/truth. Yet that isn't good enough for those who read it with an agenda. They go beyond that to draw parallels where he doesn't.

As far as I know, all of Jesus's parables are like this, told for the main purpose, not for the story.

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

Yes, that is the thought that, in retrospect, we know Jesus had in mind, not that he didn't also realize the sinful nature of man in general, who is no different from the Jews; man on his own will not see the truth standing right in front of him.

 

[Saint Steven]

And I mean you no insult by saying that sounds more like something a universalist would come up with.

I actually brought it with me from Evangelicalism. Although they didn't say Christ brought everyone out. Here's the support.

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Note: Christ was laid in an above ground tomb. Where is the heart of the earth?
Answer: the realm of the dead

1 Peter 3:18-20
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

Ephesians 4:8-10
This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also
descended to the lower, earthly regions?
10 He who descended is the very one who ascended
higher than all the heavens,
in order to fill the whole universe.)

1 Peter 4:6 NRSV
For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

 

[Fervent]

Yes, of course there are big problems w/ dispensationalists, SDA's, and JW's. These problems are the result of ignoring Church tradition and insisting on sola scriptura, which in practice means insisting on their own interpretations, considering their own opinions to be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

I'd add reformed to that list, and a big part of the problem is no one really talks about hermeneutics so more often than not examination of the text comes down to looking for ways to force the text to fit a doctrine rather than seeking to consistently interpret the text regardless of what it does to our doctrine.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I actually brought it with me from Evangelicalism. Although they didn't say Christ brought everyone out. Here's the support.

Matthew 12:40
For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

Note: Christ was laid in an above ground tomb. Where is the heart of the earth?
Answer: the realm of the dead

1 Peter 3:18-20
For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive in the Spirit. 19 After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water,

Ephesians 4:8-10
This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also
descended to the lower, earthly regions?
10 He who descended is the very one who ascended
higher than all the heavens,
in order to fill the whole universe.)

1 Peter 4:6 NRSV
For this is the reason the gospel was proclaimed even to the dead, so that, though they had been judged in the flesh as everyone is judged, they might live in the spirit as God does.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

You apparently misunderstand me. My argument is not that Jesus did not go to the realm of the dead, (in fact, I believe he did), but rather against the notion that his preaching to souls there was for the purpose or effective in saving some who there had died in their sins.

 

[Mark Quayle]

I'd add reformed to that list, and a big part of the problem is no one really talks about hermeneutics so more often than not examination of the text comes down to looking for ways to force the text to fit a doctrine rather than seeking to consistently interpret the text regardless of what it does to our doctrine.

You may be surprised to learn that I came to believe in what Reformed Theology teaches before I knew it was called that. And I came to believe in it through many years of hard study, hard experience and much agonized prayer. I would not want to go through that again, but I would not trade it for anything. I came to realize that Grace has no room for any other cause in the Gospel but God himself, and that my life is for his purposes, and his sake. Not mine. I'm no longer afraid of maybe not after all being sincere enough or strong enough to really have meant quite what I asked, when I invited him into my heart, nor to have the integrity to actually commit to him, seeing all my failings to keep to what I had committed, and understanding what I was repenting of well enough. My satisfaction now, is his happiness and glory in his success, and my confidence is in the fact that whatever he set out to do, he will complete. THAT motivates me to obey and pursue him more than all the Arminianism I grew up with.

 

[Clare73]

No, I don't believe in 'soul sleep' for the very reason that
I don't think there is time passage (as such) for a soul after death.

In light of that, what is your understanding of Paul's meaning that
1) he would prefer to be absent from the body and present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), that
2) to live is Christ and to die is gain, that he desires to depart and be with Christ (Philippians 1:21-23)

and what reality do you think he has in mind there:

a) consciously present with Christ until the resurrection/judgment, which is gain over "to live is Christ," or
b) unconscious until the resurrection when he will be with Christ, which does not seem like gain over "to live is Christ," or
c) neither of the above but something else, which is. . .

 

[RileyG]

Sin is its own punishment. Some theologians argue the damned in hell have punished themselves.

 

[wendykvw]

Christus victor is certainly part of the atonement discussion, but it's not a theory proper it's more of a word picture that relies on ransom theory as its basic explanation.

As for Ramelli...she's very much a motivated thinker, often distorting the things she quotes to fit her arguments rather than bringing out what is in the documents she's working with. It's quite common for supplying a line before or after within the document she's working with to completely destroy the point she is forwarding in her quote. She appears to be more interested in providing an apologetic for universalism than generating solid scholarly works.

The Christus Victor View was the dominant early Church atonement view up until the 11th century. I don't know what else to tell you. You can argue that fact all you like. The fact remains.

As for Ramelli she is a Patristic Scholar and has no agenda. Just because you don't agree with her does not make her any less knowledgeable. What are your credentials?

 

[Fervent]

You may be surprised to learn that I came to believe in what Reformed Theology teaches before I knew it was called that. And I came to believe in it through many years of hard study, hard experience and much agonized prayer. I would not want to go through that again, but I would not trade it for anything. I came to realize that Grace has no room for any other cause in the Gospel but God himself, and that my life is for his purposes, and his sake. Not mine. I'm no longer afraid of maybe not after all being sincere enough or strong enough to really have meant quite what I asked, when I invited him into my heart, nor to have the integrity to actually commit to him, seeing all my failings to keep to what I had committed, and understanding what I was repenting of well enough. My satisfaction now, is his happiness and glory in his success, and my confidence is in the fact that whatever he set out to do, he will complete. THAT motivates me to obey and pursue him more than all the Arminianism I grew up with.

Not entirely, reformed proponents have essentially mastered the art of the soundbyte to the extent that certain verses(such as John 6:44, Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10, Ephesians 2:8) have come to be almost entirely detached from their context within the books they're found in and taken on a reformed ring. Its a doctrinal system that is essentially only supportable if we divorce the Bible from its historic context and read it in isolation which is why it only finds ground among those with no grounding in history thereby introducing a foreign context to the text.

 

[Mark Quayle]

In light of that, what is your understanding of Paul's meaning that
1) he would prefer to be absent from the body and present with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:8), that
2) to live is Christ and to die is gain, that he desires to depart and be with Christ (Philippians 1:21-23)

and what reality do you think he has in mind there:

a) consciously present with Christ until the resurrection/judgment, which is gain over "to live is Christ," or
b) unconscious until the resurrection when he will be with Christ, which does not seem like gain to me, or
c) neither of the above but something else, which is. . .

c). neither a) nor b) applies after temporal death, in my opinion. There is no "until" at that point. That is only a temporal viewpoint, a use of human ways of thinking. To me it makes no sense that anyone precedes anyone else to Heaven. I believe, for example, (and admittedly, mostly because I can't conceive of it being otherwise), that a sequence due to cause and effect will apply there, but not a time sequence as such. Not a series of events, except as God uses them for a purpose, such as perhaps is described in Revelation. I like to think that we will see all history unfold, to include every motion of every smallest detail, all things being relevant, every cause, every effect, every thought, word and deed of every person from Adam on, yet it take neither time nor sequence for that to happen, though "from up there" we watch time's effect on this life, all as part of the judgement.

To me it makes sense that not only will we 'see him as he is', and attend the marriage supper, and the 'sons of God be revealed', and 'walk the streets of gold' and perhaps even the reign of a thousand years, and be judged and plead the blood, not simultaneously, and not sequentially, but all true as the word of God. Each its own 'fact' interrelated with the others, rather than 'event', as such. This is also why I like to say that perhaps God created the final product, done as soon as he spoke, though it has taken this many thousands of years to accomplish. It would help understand why Scriptures speak of things like the lamb slain from the foundations of the world, and being chosen before the foundation of the world, and it would also fit all the best logical thinking concerning God (philosophy concerning the attributes and meaning of 'God'), such as Simplicity, Aseity, Transcendence and Immanence, which seem to contradict each other at some points, (points resulting from human pov, of course).

 

[Fervent]

The Christus Victor View was the dominant early Church atonement view up until the 11th century. I don't know what else to tell you. You can argue that fact all you like. The fact remains.

Christus victor was unheard of until Gustaf Aulen wrote a book named that in 1931 arguing it was the ancient view. That it was the dominant view is not a fact, but an argument. In and of itself Christus victor is not a theory of atonement because it doesn't give any explanation of how the victory is achieved, only a declaration of Christ being victor over death. The most dominant theory among early theorists is ransom theory which Aulen linked with his motif.

As for Ramelli she is a Patristic Scholar and has no agenda. Just because you don't agree with her does not make her any less knowledgeable. What are your credentials?

It's not simply that I disagree with her, it is that she makes a habit of manipulating quotes to change what the authors she is quoting is saying. It is quite common to be able to expand the scope of her quotes by only a line or two and see that she is not handling the material honestly as the full quotes are diametrically opposed to her presentation of the quotes. This is not a matter of credentials, it is a matter of methodology.

 

[Saint Steven]

You apparently misunderstand me. My argument is not that Jesus did not go to the realm of the dead, (in fact, I believe he did), but rather against the notion that his preaching to souls there was for the purpose or effective in saving some who there had died in their sins.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Ephesians 4:8
This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

1 Peter 3:19-20
After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not entirely, reformed proponents have essentially mastered the art of the soundbyte to the extent that certain verses(such as John 6:44, Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:10, Ephesians 2:8) have come to be almost entirely detached from their context within the books they're found in and taken on a reformed ring. Its a doctrinal system that is essentially only supportable if we divorce the Bible from its historic context and read it in isolation which is why it only finds ground among those with no grounding in history thereby introducing a foreign context to the text.

It's almost like you didn't read what I said.