Sin exists forever

[parousia70]

Here's a philosophical issue:

Most Christians believe in eternal, or everlasting, punishment. Even if we propose that it is the Devil and "the beast and the false prophet" (Rev. 20:10) who are the only ones who suffer eternally, that would still add up to a cosmos wherein sin and suffering continue forever and ever. To have planet Earth free from sin and suffering while sin and suffering continue elsewhere for eternity (i.e., "the lake of fire") does not solve the philosophical problem of the existence of sin and suffering. Unless you are a Universalist or an annihilationist, it seems that any objection you have about the sin being "eternal", may have more to do with the locale of sin and suffering than with the mere existence of it.

Now, we do in fact see verses that indirectly say that the existence of sin will continue "forever." Here are some of the verses:

Ps. 110:4: "Thou art a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek."

Since Christ is a Priest on behalf of sinners "forever," we understand that sinners will exist on earth "forever" to enjoy the ministry of forgiveness of sins in Christ.

Rev. 14:6: "...the Everlasting Gospel to preach unto them that dwell on the earth..." (Rev. 14:6).

Since the Gospel, which is for sinners that dwell on the earth, is "everlasting," this necessitates that sinners will be born on earth everlastingly to enjoy the blessings of the Gospel.

In Rev. 22:2, on "the new earth," we see the "Tree of life" that yields fruit every month, the "leaves" of which are "for the healing of the nations" (Rev. 22:2). This teaches us that in the new earth, "the nations" are in need of continual healing.

I would like to add here that in light of these passages, we must know that the existence of sin in the universe in no way implies the victory of sin. Nor does the continued existence of sin in the universe at all imply a "stalemate" between righteousness and sin. If it did, then we would be forced to say that God has as of yet won zero decisive victories over sin, since sin still exists. The idea that the mere existence of sin in the universe implies the non-victory of righteousness in the universe is an existential philosophy that devalues all that has thus far been wrought by the cross of Christ.

It seems that some people will never be satisfied with anything less than a fleshly utopia that is characterized by absolute "behavioral errorlessness" throughout the entire universe (except for in hell). In contrast to this idea of how the universe should be, God says that He created "vessels of wrath fitted to destruction" in order "that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy."

Sin exists, yet God is victorious over sin every day: "Every morning I will destroy all the wicked of the Land, so as to cut off from the city of the Lord all those who do iniquity" (Ps. 101:8).

The world in which we live is not "the best of all possible worlds" for the wicked. But it is the best of all possible worlds, "to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose" (Rom. 8:28).

 

[ukok]

Long post to respond to and I can't reply to it all now but i'm just wondering if "most Christians" really do believe in " eternal or everlasting punishment". hmmm

 

[LaserCool]

The idea that the mere existence of sin in the universe implies the non-victory of righteousness in the universe is an existential philosophy that devalues all that has thus far been wrought by the cross of Christ...It seems that some people will never be satisfied with anything less than a fleshly utopia that is characterized by absolute "behavioral errorlessness" throughout the entire universe (except for in hell).

Well, I can only speak for myself. As an atheist, I find the whole idea of sin to be rediculous and non-existent.

Let me be painfully clear: "Sin" is a condition of an inherent predelection towards evil. If sin were really just imperfections (i.e. physical, mental, psychological or emotional), then I'd be crusading against it as well. Sin, per se, is thought of as more of an sickness or disease that one cannot cure oneself of. If left alone, such a sickness will lead to murder rape and mayhem.

Surely, there are people who commit crimes for whatever reason: personal gain, revenge, or mental illness. But "sin" is something more than simple crime. It's the motivation to crime. It's some kind of magical force impelling people to do evil.

The term reveals itself with the premise that "thinking" of a crime or sin is a sin iteslf. Sin is motivation, not actions.

I don't believe in this "sin".

We can't legislate against thoughts (the term "hate crime" notwithstanding), but only against actions. If good application of law to punish those that demonstrably harm others constitutes as "fleshy errorlessness", then sign me up!

I'd rather not have anone policing my mind or those of others. The doctrine of "sin" is nothing more than thoughtcrime, and justification for enforcement of the contents of people's minds.

 

[ACougar]

I do not accept the concept of sin, sin means seperation from Divinity and yet Divinity is immenant in all things. I'm not saying we will not reap what we sow, simply that the concept of sin is destructive and a tool used to manipute us. There is no such thing as sin except in the hearts and minds of those who believe in it. Reject sin.

 

[Received]

Parousia, you make a great claim (well said also).

The idea of the arminian view, and especially the non-arminian, literal flames view, for eternity is partly the workings of Augustine, who very well may have mixed some of his Manichean philosophy with Christianity (as the former holds to an eternal, dualistic, fiery existence). I personally do not find annihilationism appealing at all (non-existence is not a punishment; and punishment prior to non-existence is sadistic -- clearly the punished will not recall their faults after they have ceased to exist in the ontological realm); universalism seems to make the best case. This is only my opinion, of course.