Is Hell fair?

[OzSpen]

DArceri,

Good point. The problem most people have is that they think one of God's attributes is fairness. But that simply is not so. JOB found that out too quickly.... All God has to be is JUST in His decisions. If sinning against an eternally Holy and Righteous God requires an eternal punishment for Divine justice to be satisfied, then it is what it is. Does it seem unfair to the finite mind? Maybe. But remember what scripture says,....."For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways And My thoughts than your thoughts....(Is 55:9).

You have stated it well. Hell and heaven are just according to God's standard of infinite justice. Ungodly and religious people can't get a handle on this because their minds are blinded to the truth of God's attribute of justice.

But he has revealed the attribute and its actions in the trustworthy Scriptures.

In Christ, Spencer

 

[from scratch]

in the wikipedia article on "The Problem of Hell" it talks about the unfairness of an infinite consequence of finite sin. Regardless of how bad one was on earth, nevertheless an infinite punishment for sins committed during a finite period seems an overkill.

On the other hand, is it fair that an entire lifetime is altered just by a 1 hour exam? Or that one mistake could land you the death penalty in the wrong country?

What are your opinions on this, as I am quite troubled by it.

Yes it is very fair. God doesn't shose to send you there. It is yor choice to accept Jesus redemption and restoration of fellowship with God. It is the person making the choice either passively or actively. You are only sent to hell for rejection of God not your sins. One is not rquired to accept mercy. Some demand reward for what they do.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

in the wikipedia article on "The Problem of Hell" it talks about the unfairness of an infinite consequence of finite sin. Regardless of how bad one was on earth, nevertheless an infinite punishment for sins committed during a finite period seems an overkill.

On the other hand, is it fair that an entire lifetime is altered just by a 1 hour exam? Or that one mistake could land you the death penalty in the wrong country?

What are your opinions on this, as I am quite troubled by it.

it talks about the unfairness of an infinite consequence of finite sin. Regardless of how bad one was on earth, nevertheless an infinite punishment for sins committed during a finite period seems an overkill.

1. Problem with wiki's are that anyone can mess with them
2. The problem presented doesnt have a correct understanding of sin

it is a false dillema. A strawman.

The problem is that the premises UNDER the statement are wrong.

Sin is NOT temporal for sin is found in primarily WHOM the sin is against.

IE: I throw a rock at your house, slap on the wrist . . . if I throw one at the WHITEHOUSE it is a FEDERAL CRIME . . . what is the difference? The stature of the one who resides in the house.

Consequently, sin is not measured in its breadth . . . or width . . . but in height and depth. IOW it is not how much sin but in whom the sin is against.

So, sin's measure is found in being against God. Sin is FIRST and FOREMOST a smearing of the glory of God in some sense or another. The most fundamental is in exalting ones own worth as MORE worthy than God. IOW, I eat more than I should as MY OWN DESIRE comes before my desire to obey God in keeping my temple fit. In this, I have replaced God . . . I am my own god. God is NOT worthy, but my tummy IS.

Jer 2:9-13
9 "Therefore I will yet contend with you," declares the LORD,
"And with your sons' sons I will contend.
10 "For cross to the coastlands of Kittim and see,
And send to Kedar and observe closely
And see if there has been such a thing as this!
11 "Has a nation changed gods
When they were not gods?
But My people have changed their glory
For that which does not profit.
12 "Be appalled, O heavens, at this,
And shudder, be very desolate," declares the LORD.
13 "For My people have committed two evils:
They have forsaken Me,
The fountain of living waters,
To hew for themselves cisterns,
Broken cisterns
That can hold no water.
NASU


read closely . . . God's people TRADED HIM for something of LESS VALUE (in this peculiar case it is foreign gods) . . . they traded the well of living water IN ORDER TO make their OWN cistern and that cistern is BROKEN and doesnt even hold water! God calls this EVIL!

Imagine:

A man walking thru the desert, in rags, parched, cracked lips, ragged.

He suddenly stumbles on the most ornate fountain u can imagine. Bright white marble, stunning images of Goid's works, crystal clear water, cool and bright in sun, refreshing to the very core and SWEET to the taste!

And this guy looks at the fountain, and SCREAMS "I DONT WANT THAT!" and turns and begins to SHOVEL dirt down his gullet . . .

He TRADES that which is of the GREATEST value for that which is of NO VALUE because HE WANTS TO.

That is the picture of sin that Romans 3

Rom 3:23
for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,
NASU

presents. We all fall short of honoring and glorifying God . . . and that is the definition of sin.

God being eternally worthy, sin against Him who is eternally worthy is eternally worth punishing.

Like spitting on the mona lisa . . .

better yet, one who looks at the crucified Christ, and SPITS ON HIS FACE . . . is worthy of eternally suffering for HIS REJECTION OF GOD'S GREATEST GIFT.

So the question is answered in
1. Understanding who sin is against
2. Understanding the worth of the One who is sinned against
3. Understanding that God's own love for the action of the Cross by His Son will result in Him smiting one for eternity as that one rejects and smears and turns their nose up at the EPITOMY of love.

One becomes what one beholds . . . if one beholds mean and evil and wicked things, that one takes on those same qualities. The inverse is true as well (2 Cor 3 . . . 18 ish I think) we behold God in the face of christ and God transforms us into the image of His Son! . . . we call it sanctification.

So, the entire arguement is flawed as it doesnt account for sin being eternal.

 

[bliz]

in the wikipedia article on "The Problem of Hell" it talks about the unfairness of an infinite consequence of finite sin.

The "problem" is not stated correctly. Everyone who ever is alive commits sins. The people going to hell have not had their sins covered by the blood of Jesus Christ.

 

[OzSpen]

Mathetes the kerux,


You have stated this so well:

1. Problem with wiki's are that anyone can mess with them
2. The problem presented doesnt have a correct understanding of sin
it is a false dillema. A strawman.
The problem is that the premises UNDER the statement are wrong.
Sin is NOT temporal for sin is found in primarily WHOM the sin is against.
IE: I throw a rock at your house, slap on the wrist . . . if I throw one at the WHITEHOUSE it is a FEDERAL CRIME . . . what is the difference? The stature of the one who resides in the house.
Consequently, sin is not measured in its breadth . . . or width . . . but in height and depth. IOW it is not how much sin but in whom the sin is against.
So, sin's measure is found in being against God. Sin is FIRST and FOREMOST a smearing of the glory of God in some sense or another. The most fundamental is in exalting ones own worth as MORE worthy than God. IOW, I eat more than I should as MY OWN DESIRE comes before my desire to obey God in keeping my temple fit. In this, I have replaced God . . . I am my own god. God is NOT worthy, but my tummy IS.

Australian cultural apologist, Bill Muehlenberg, only yesterday (14 Sept 2010) wrote about this view of sin being against God in this article “On Sin”. He points out that the major impact of sin is vertical (against God) and not just the horizontal dimensions. He writes:

In his examination of the Fall he [D. A. Carson] says this: “Genesis 3 does not think of evil primarily in horizontal terms but in vertical terms. When we do think of evil, we tend to think of evil at the horizontal level.” He offers some clear examples of this, such as the Holocaust, and then goes on to say, “But what the Bible most frequently says makes God angry is idolatry. This is evil’s vertical dimension.”
He says similar things in his other new book, Collected Writings on Scripture (Crossway, 2010). In a review of a recent book about Scripture by another major New Testament scholar, N.T. Wright, Carson bemoans the fact that in Wright’s portrayal of the Bible’s big picture, there is nothing said about the wrath of God.
Says Carson, “Sin is not first and foremost horizontal, social (though of course it is all that): it is vertical, the defiance of almighty God. The sin that most consistently is said to bring down God’s wrath on the heads of his people or on entire nations is idolatry – the de-godding of God.”
​

Hell is serious and deserves eternal damnation, because sin against the Lord God Almighty is serious.How do we know this? God has sent the details in special revelation - the Scriptures.

But those who are liberal theologically or those who have a dim view of Scripture are not up to accepting God's diagnosis and solution to the sin problem.

Sincerely, Spencer

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Mathetes the kerux,


You have stated this so well:
Australian cultural apologist, Bill Muehlenberg, only yesterday (14 Sept 2010) wrote about this view of sin being against God in this article “On Sin”. He points out that the major impact of sin is vertical (against God) and not just the horizontal dimensions. He writes:
Hell is serious and deserves eternal damnation, because sin against the Lord God Almighty is serious.How do we know this? God has sent the details in special revelation - the Scriptures.

But those who are liberal theologically or those who have a dim view of Scripture are not up to accepting God's diagnosis and solution to the sin problem.

Sincerely, Spencer

thanks!

LOVE DA Carson BTW . . . dont like NT Wright much as his "the new perspective on Paul" stuff doesnt jive.

 

[Hillsage]

Really? God gave us free will, hence why Adam and Eve were free to eat the apple. God told them not to but did not prevent them fron sinning, hence free will.

If our walk is supposed to be based upon 'logic' like above, then we might also say; The angels had free will prior to their fall and likewise man also had free will prior to his fall. That's why the 'new birth' is just like any birth today...the one getting born, never was asked about 'his will' first.

JOH 1:12 But to all who received him, who believed in his name, he gave power to become children of God; 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

I believe the "will of man" here means 'you and me'.

 

[OzSpen]

Mathetes,

thanks!

LOVE DA Carson BTW . . . dont like NT Wright much as his "the new perspective on Paul" stuff doesnt jive.

While I'm not a Calvinist because of theological persuasion, I deeply appreciate so much of D A Carson's exegesis and expositions. His expose of postmodernism, The Gagging of God, is brilliant.

While I don't agree with all of N T Wright's work, his critique of the historical Jesus' people of the Jesus Seminar has been brilliant in most places, IMO, in his The New Testament and the people of God; Jesus and the victory of God; and The resurrection of the Son of God. Like all scholars, all of us need to have discerning eyes when we read for presuppositions that intrude, without biblical affirmation.

Because of the pervasive influence of false teaching throughout history and in our day, biblical discernment is a critical gift. I think that this is an essential requirement when we "equip the saints for the work of ministry".

In Christ, Spencer

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Mathetes,

While I'm not a Calvinist because of theological persuasion, I deeply appreciate so much of D A Carson's exegesis and expositions. His expose of postmodernism, The Gagging of God, is brilliant.

While I don't agree with all of N T Wright's work, his critique of the historical Jesus' people of the Jesus Seminar has been brilliant in most places, IMO, in his The New Testament and the people of God; Jesus and the victory of God; and The resurrection of the Son of God. Like all scholars, all of us need to have discerning eyes when we read for presuppositions that intrude, without biblical affirmation.

Because of the pervasive influence of false teaching throughout history and in our day, biblical discernment is a critical gift. I think that this is an essential requirement when we "equip the saints for the work of ministry".

In Christ, Spencer

Yeah Carson has a phenomenal mind. Doesnt preach very well tho! . . . Piper preaches MUCH better, tho for a teacher, Carson is top notch.

I kno Wright knocked the Jesus Sem dudes off their block . . . kudos to him. I kno some of his other stuff is sound . . . I just cant swallow the new concepts of justification that he trys to work. Matter of fact, I think it was Carson who showed how Wright was all but out to lunch on his take of 2nd Temple Judaism and the intertestamental pharisaic paradigms. I guess this is where he tries to find warrant for his "pauline" stuff . . . and most shy away cause he sounds all academic. But when Piper asked Carson about it . . . Carson shrugged his shoulders and said something along the lines of "well I have read all the works he cites in their native tongue and he has it askew" . . . so Carson wasnt flustered as everyone else in evangelicalism! lol . . . mainly because he didnt have to take Wright's word for it but had spent years in the texts himself. Funny.

Because of the pervasive influence of false teaching throughout history and in our day, biblical discernment is a critical gift. I think that this is an essential requirement when we "equip the saints for the work of ministry".

Amen and Amen . . . BTW I have a decent take on predestination . . . u might be interested and you seem grounded enough to get it . . .let me kno.

 

[OzSpen]

Mathetes,

BTW I have a decent take on predestination . . . u might be interested and you seem grounded enough to get it . . .let me know.

Can you do better than Norman Geisler in Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1999)? If so, let’s discuss it in “Soteriology” (the doctrine of salvation) at: Soteriology - Christian Forums Why don’t you start a new thread with a title like, “Predestination according to the Book”. That’s just a thought out of my mind at the end of a long day of counselling. Bed is calling after a 5am rise.



In Christ, Spencer

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Mathetes,

Can you do better than Norman Geisler in Chosen but Free: A Balanced View of Divine Election (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House Publishers, 1999)? If so, let’s discuss it in “Soteriology” (the doctrine of salvation) at: Soteriology - Christian Forums Why don’t you start a new thread with a title like, “Predestination according to the Book”. That’s just a thought out of my mind at the end of a long day of counselling. Bed is calling after a 5am rise.



In Christ, Spencer

Havnt read Geisler's take. So I dont know. If u want to open a thread, I am fine. I could also PM it to you.

 

[OzSpen]

Mathetes,

Havnt read Geisler's take. So I dont know. If u want to open a thread, I am fine. I could also PM it to you.

Why don’t you start a thread in soteriology with your take on election/predestination.

In my theology courses in Bible College many years ago in Australia, I was introduced to Henry Thiessen's articulation of these views on election[Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdman's 1949 -- it has been revised (Calvinised) in a later edition] to be helpful. I refer to the 1949 edition. I have not changed my views since then as I find this a biblically persuasive position. A summary of Theissen’s position is:

Election is the sovereign act of God in grace, whereby He chose in Christ for Himself and for salvation, all those whom He foreknew would respond positively to prevenient grace.

God was under no obligation to elect anyone, since all had lost their standing before God. It was an act in grace, in that He chose those who were utterly unworthy of salvation. People deserved the exact opposite, but in His grace, God chose to save some, i.e. those He foreknew would accept Christ.

The Scriptures are quite clear that God's election is based on His foreknowledge (Rom.8:29; 1 Peter 1:2).

The Bible teaches that people are responsible for accepting or rejecting salvation. Since people are hopelessly dead in trespasses and sin and can do nothing to obtain salvation, God graciously restores to all people sufficient ability to make a choice about submission to Him. This is the grace of God that has appeared to all people.

In His foreknowledge, God perceives what each one will do with this restored ability, and elects people to salvation by His knowledge of their choice.

Some people see election as a choice that God makes without any reason. This does not harmonise with the teaching of Scripture that God is just and impartial. If God elects some to salvation and all others to damnation on no particular basis other than God's arbitrary and sovereign will (this sounds like fatalism), then it was necessary for Jesus to die only for the elect, not for the whole world.

Also, evangelism and missions would be unnecessary, because God would cause the elect to be saved without any involvement on our part.​

​

In Christ, Spencer​

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Mathetes,

Why don’t you start a thread in soteriology with your take on election/predestination.

In my theology courses in Bible College many years ago in Australia, I was introduced to Henry Thiessen's articulation of these views on election[Lectures in Systematic Theology, Eerdman's 1949 -- it has been revised (Calvinised) in a later edition] to be helpful. I refer to the 1949 edition. I have not changed my views since then as I find this a biblically persuasive position. A summary of Theissen’s position is:
[/indent]

In Christ, Spencer
​

Close . . . but I add a little more

and I dont think I would say this

"graciously restores to all people sufficient ability to make a choice about submission to Him."

as that would constitute life . . . the ability to choose Him cannot be had by a dead man (eph 2) for dead men cannot "do" anything.

K I will open one

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

here

http://www.christianforums.com/t7499636/#post55714176

 

[OzSpen]

Close . . . but I add a little more

and I dont think I would say this

"graciously restores to all people sufficient ability to make a choice about submission to Him."

as that would constitute life . . . the ability to choose Him cannot be had by a dead man (eph 2) for dead men cannot "do" anything.

K I will open one

However, isn't that the meaning of Titus 2:11?

For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation for all people ... (ESV).

In Christ,
Spencer

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

However, isn't that the meaning of Titus 2:11?


In Christ,
Spencer

Not unless u feel all are saved . . . as the following context speaks of believers

Titus 2:11-14
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
NASU

Sometimes pantas doesnt mean "all" but all of the group being referred to. Context determines meaning, and the usage of "us, our, people . . . His . . . possession" points to "all men" being the redeemed. Otherwise every person on the planet should be denying ungodliness, worldly desires, living righteously and sensibly, et. al . . . all describing the effect of the Spirit in the life of the believer in sanctification.

 

[OzSpen]

Mathetes,

Not unless u feel all are saved . . . as the following context speaks of believers

Titus 2:11-14
11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men, 12 instructing us to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, 13 looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Christ Jesus, 14 who gave Himself for us to redeem us from every lawless deed, and to purify for Himself a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.
NASU

Sometimes pantas doesnt mean "all" but all of the group being referred to. Context determines meaning, and the usage of "us, our, people . . . His . . . possession" points to "all men" being the redeemed. Otherwise every person on the planet should be denying ungodliness, worldly desires, living righteously and sensibly, et. al . . . all describing the effect of the Spirit in the life of the believer in sanctification.

I am not a universalist and I do not believe that Titus 2:11 teaches universalism. However, I am not a limited atonement believer either.

The "for" explanation at the beginning of 2:11 ties it (vv. 11-14) to vv 2-10. Verse 11 tells why the people of God should live according to the instructions of vv. 2-10 so that God's message will not be criticised spitefully (v. 5) but will be attractive (v. 10). It is because "the grace of God that brings salvation to all" people has appeared.

As far as I can gather from my Greek text, vv. 11-14 seem to be one sentence with "the grace of God" as the subject (as opposed to KJV and NIV). Paul is NOT affirming that this grace has appeared to all people. Instead as many translations put it and Paul's word order suggests, what has appeared is grace from God, offering salvation to all people (this verse is not a supporter of limited atonement).

That's my understanding.

In grace,
Spencer

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Mathetes,

I am not a universalist and I do not believe that Titus 2:11 teaches universalism. However, I am not a limited atonement believer either.

The "for" explanation at the beginning of 2:11 ties it (vv. 11-14) to vv 2-10. Verse 11 tells why the people of God should live according to the instructions of vv. 2-10 so that God's message will not be criticised spitefully (v. 5) but will be attractive (v. 10). It is because "the grace of God that brings salvation to all" people has appeared.

As far as I can gather from my Greek text, vv. 11-14 seem to be one sentence with "the grace of God" as the subject (as opposed to KJV and NIV). Paul is NOT affirming that this grace has appeared to all people. Instead as many translations put it and Paul's word order suggests, what has appeared is grace from God, offering salvation to all people (this verse is not a supporter of limited atonement).

That's my understanding.

In grace,
Spencer

Seems ok to me.

I am a limited atonement guy in the sense of how it is applied . . . but I am not a limited atonement guy in its POWER or POTENTIAL. It is the eternal blood of Christ and therefore cannot be measured and have limits in its potential . . . but it can have limits in its application. The atonement must be applied.

So I believe Jesus died in such a way that each and every sense of a universal call is 100% genuine. But also that tho these calls are genuine, God knew who would be atoned for and it is therefore in its appointment limited.

Time and space and their interaction with eternity makes my eyes cross!

 

[OzSpen]

Mathetes,

Seems ok to me.

I am a limited atonement guy in the sense of how it is applied . . . but I am not a limited atonement guy in its POWER or POTENTIAL. It is the eternal blood of Christ and therefore cannot be measured and have limits in its potential . . . but it can have limits in its application. The atonement must be applied.

So I believe Jesus died in such a way that each and every sense of a universal call is 100% genuine. But also that tho these calls are genuine, God knew who would be atoned for and it is therefore in its appointment limited.

Time and space and their interaction with eternity makes my eyes cross!

Because of what I regard as the unbiblical nature of the Calvinistic notion of limited atonement, I want to avoid any association with a "limited atonement" message because of the Calvinistic baggage.

I prefer the language that Christ's death was for all people but not all people will respond to Christ's invitation for salvation.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Mathetes,

Because of what I regard as the unbiblical nature of the Calvinistic notion of limited atonement, I want to avoid any association with a "limited atonement" message because of the Calvinistic baggage.

I prefer the language that Christ's death was for all people but not all people will respond to Christ's invitation for salvation.

Gun shy?

s'ok . . . a rose by any other name . . . I think we agree tho