Some clarification...

[A Devil's Advocate]

Many of my posts contradict traditional and, often times, denominational theologies. As a result, I inevitably get someone responding in a condescending or patronizing manner. I get it. We are all fallible, and often times reaction tends to proceed a thoughtful response.

So, I thought I would take a moment and give some insight into my thought process, as well as a followup to my last post, "To Hell or Not To Hell."

My approach to truth and Scripture works like this: truth does not depend on our agreement or support. It exists on its own and remains true whether we recognize it or not. Because truth describes reality, it is always logical. It will never contradict the basic laws that allow us to understand the world we live in. Those same laws are what make truth recognizable in the first place.

So when something in Scripture appears to violate logic or contradict reality, the most likely problem is not the truth itself, but our understanding of it. In those cases, it is far more reasonable to assume that we are misunderstanding what the author was communicating to his original audience. Scripture was written in a different time, culture, and language, and meaning is shaped by those contexts. If we ignore that, we risk reading our assumptions into the text instead of understanding what was actually being said.

When I say "logic" I am talking about coherence with reality as God designed it. Simply put... Because truth describes reality, it is always coherent; therefore, when Scripture seems illogical, the problem is not truth itself but our understanding of the text.

That is basically how I approach scripture.

As a followup to my last post...

I discovered purely by coincidence that my conclusion is what is understood to be "Conditionalism." Something I learned from a Podcast by Kirk Cameron. A podcast that has created a lot of backlash for Kirk. Every response to his podcast, that I saw, was in defence of eternal punishment. Something him and I were both brought up initially believing. So of course, I couldn't help but wonder if both Him and I are just simply misunderstanding what has been written in scripture. After giving it a lot of thought, and again, following my thought process, I have come to the conclusion that both Kirk and I are standing on solid ground. Let's follow the logic through...

- Eternal is a state of perfection. Imperfection cannot exist eternally. Anything imperfect breaks down, deteriorates, changes, and moves towards an end.

- Punishment presupposes imperfection. It assumes guilt, deficiency, unresolved wrong doing, and a lack of restoration. It is a response to imperfection.

Therefore, eternal punishment creates a contradiction. If punishment were eternal, it would mean that imperfection never ends and justice is never completed. This would imply that God's judgment never finishes and His justice is never satisfied.

Basically.... to be eternal and perfection go together, because anything imperfect eventually breaks down. Punishment exists because something is wrong, not because something is complete. If punishment lasted forever, imperfection would also last forever, which would mean creation is never fully restored. For that reason, eternal punishment and eternal perfection are logically at odds with each other.

Annihilation without punishment denies God's justice. Whereas, a duration of Punishment followed by a natural death, as I explained in my post, but could also be understood as eventual annihilation, allows for not only God's justice, but also His love and grace even towards those who did not love him back.

 

[Mark Quayle]

- Eternal/Immortality is a state of perfection. Imperfection cannot exist eternally. Anything imperfect breaks down, deteriorates, changes, and moves towards an end.

The statement here is necessarily temporal. Therefore, not absolute. That is, you make the claim, "Imperfection cannot exist eternally." But that may be irrelevant to eternity, if eternity is closer to 'timelessness' than to 'forever-after-ness'.

- Punishment presupposes imperfection. It assumes guilt, deficiency, unresolved wrong doing, and a lack of restoration. It is a response to imperfection.

Therefore, eternal punishment creates a contradiction. If punishment were eternal, it would mean that imperfection never ends and justice is never completed. This would imply that God's judgment never finishes and His justice is never satisfied.

Even in a temporal setting, this does not follow. It presupposes that the justice is not the actual [ongoing] punishment, but rather, the completed dispensing of punishment.

Basically.... Immortality and perfection go together, because anything imperfect eventually breaks down. Punishment exists because something is wrong, not because something is complete. If punishment lasted forever, imperfection would also last forever, which would mean creation is never fully restored. For that reason, eternal punishment and eternal perfection are logically at odds with each other.

This assumes eternal punishment is of the same order as eternal life.

But consider the bruised heel.

Annihilation without punishment denies God's justice. Whereas, a duration of Punishment followed by a natural death, as I explained in my post, but could also be understood as eventual annihilation, allows for not only God's justice, but also His love and grace even towards those who did not love him back.

That they are given grace is a definite fact, even though (apparently) you agree with me that his favor toward some is not the same as his favor toward others, though none are more worthy than the others. That is grace, after all. But that there be a duration of punishment that must end at some point, or, conversely, that there must be an end that IS the punishment, both fall under the category of assuming death is an end of being, when the fact remains that those whom God has decreed will die eternally, did indeed happen. —I.e. it is fact, it is history, it is created. It does not pass into non-fact, which is what annihilation seems to imply.

 

[ARBITER01]

Therefore, eternal punishment creates a contradiction. If punishment were eternal, it would mean that imperfection never ends and justice is never completed. This would imply that God's judgment never finishes and His justice is never satisfied.

Is GOD's judgement perfect?


BTW, you're outlook seems metaphysical. Simplicity in Christ.

 

[A Devil's Advocate]

The statement here is necessarily temporal. Therefore, not absolute. That is, you make the claim, "Imperfection cannot exist eternally." But that may be irrelevant to eternity, if eternity is closer to 'timelessness' than to 'forever-after-ness'.

I am certainly no expert on the subject of time. My small brain has a hard time wrapping around the idea of time and timelessness. But to the best of my current understanding, only God is truly eternal. To be eternal is to have no beginning or end. Or as you put it, timelessness. God is outside of time and therefore time does not apply to God. Everything else in existence, however, has a beginning, Genesis 1:1. Therefore, everything else is subject to time. Nothing other than God will ever be truly eternal.

Immortality, everlasting, and forever are all based off of a beginning. Therefore, subject to time unless sustained by an external source. A source that would itself not be subject to time. Something cannot give what itself does not posses. That source, of course, would need to be God. I suspect the tree of life plays an important role in this matter in the age to come. Because those in hell do not have access to the tree of life, death becomes inevitable.

Even in a temporal setting, this does not follow. It presupposes that the justice is not the actual [ongoing] punishment, but rather, the completed dispensing of punishment.

If justice consists in the completed addressing of wrongdoing, then punishment must have a finality in order for justice to be satisfied. Defining justice as eternal punishment turns justice into an unending process rather than a completed act. That redefinition doesn’t answer the problem, it simply relocates it.

Punishment, by definition, is a response to wrongdoing. It has a beginning, a purpose, and moves towards a resolution. If it has no possible resolution, then it is no longer responding to anything, it simply is. At that point guilt is never addressed, justice is never completed, and wrong doing is never resolved. It simply becomes endless harm and not justice, which is contrary to the nature of God.

 

[A Devil's Advocate]

Is GOD's judgement perfect?

It absolutely is. But judgment and punishment are not the same thing. Judgment is when an authority decides what is right or wrong and declares a verdict. Punishment is the consequence that follows that verdict. Judgment determines guilt; punishment responds to it.
Judgment leads to an outcome. It is not the outcome itself.

BTW, you're outlook seems metaphysical. Simplicity in Christ.

I'm confused on how you come to the conclusion that my outlook is metaphysical, when it is based off of the very laws used to understand our reality?

 

[Maria Billingsley]

Many of my posts contradict traditional and, often times, denominational theologies. As a result, I inevitably get someone responding in a condescending or patronizing manner. I get it. We are all fallible, and often times reaction tends to proceed a thoughtful response.

So, I thought I would take a moment and give some insight into my thought process, as well as a followup to my last post, "To Hell or Not To Hell."

My approach to truth and Scripture works like this: truth does not depend on our agreement or support. It exists on its own and remains true whether we recognize it or not. Because truth describes reality, it is always logical. It will never contradict the basic laws that allow us to understand the world we live in. Those same laws are what make truth recognizable in the first place.

So when something in Scripture appears to violate logic or contradict reality, the most likely problem is not the truth itself, but our understanding of it. In those cases, it is far more reasonable to assume that we are misunderstanding what the author was communicating to his original audience. Scripture was written in a different time, culture, and language, and meaning is shaped by those contexts. If we ignore that, we risk reading our assumptions into the text instead of understanding what was actually being said.

When I say "logic" I am talking about coherence with reality as God designed it. Simply put... Because truth describes reality, it is always coherent; therefore, when Scripture seems illogical, the problem is not truth itself but our understanding of the text.

That is basically how I approach scripture.

As a followup to my last post...

I discovered purely by coincidence that my conclusion is what is understood to be "Conditionalism." Something I learned from a Podcast by Kirk Cameron. A podcast that has created a lot of backlash for Kirk. Every response to his podcast, that I saw, was in defence of eternal punishment. Something him and I were both brought up initially believing. So of course, I couldn't help but wonder if both Him and I are just simply misunderstanding what has been written in scripture. After giving it a lot of thought, and again, following my thought process, I have come to the conclusion that both Kirk and I are standing on solid ground. Let's follow the logic through...

- Eternal is a state of perfection. Imperfection cannot exist eternally. Anything imperfect breaks down, deteriorates, changes, and moves towards an end.

- Punishment presupposes imperfection. It assumes guilt, deficiency, unresolved wrong doing, and a lack of restoration. It is a response to imperfection.

Therefore, eternal punishment creates a contradiction. If punishment were eternal, it would mean that imperfection never ends and justice is never completed. This would imply that God's judgment never finishes and His justice is never satisfied.

Basically.... to be eternal and perfection go together, because anything imperfect eventually breaks down. Punishment exists because something is wrong, not because something is complete. If punishment lasted forever, imperfection would also last forever, which would mean creation is never fully restored. For that reason, eternal punishment and eternal perfection are logically at odds with each other.

Annihilation without punishment denies God's justice. Whereas, a duration of Punishment followed by a natural death, as I explained in my post, but could also be understood as eventual annihilation, allows for not only God's justice, but also His love and grace even towards those who did not love him back.

There is a distinction between what transpires at the end for Satan, the beast and the false prophet vs human beings. "Tormented day and night forever and ever" describes an active, conscious, unending suffering. This clearly has no end. "Everlasting punishment" , though debated, can simply mean a state absent from " everlasting life" in other words, life in prison without parole. Nevertheless, the complete annihilation of torment is not stated in Scripture because it remains in full force towards Satan and his minions.

 

[timothyu]

I think God is more interested in elimination than punishment.

 

[ARBITER01]

It absolutely is. But judgment and punishment are not the same thing.

With GOD they are,...

Heb 2:1 Therefore we must give the more earnest heed to the things we have heard, lest we drift away.

Heb 2:2 For if the word spoken through angels proved steadfast, and every transgression and disobedience received a just reward,

Heb 2:3 how shall we escape if we neglect so great a salvation, which at the first began to be spoken by the Lord, and was confirmed to us by those who heard Him,

 

[A Devil's Advocate]

There is a distinction between what transpires at the end for Satan, the beast and the false prophet vs human beings. "Tormented day and night forever and ever" describes an active, conscious, unending suffering. This clearly has no end. "Everlasting punishment" , though debated, can simply mean a state absent from " everlasting life" in other words, life in prison without parole. Nevertheless, the complete annihilation of torment is not stated in Scripture because it remains in full force towards Satan and his minions.

I do not disagree there is a distinction between what transpires between Satan and human kind. However, if everlasting punishment can be argued as simply a state absent from everlasting life, then this only goes to support my view.

Only God is eternal, having no beginning or end and existing outside of time. Everything else that exists has a beginning and is therefore subject to time. Immortality and everlasting life do not mean timelessness, but unending life from a point forward. Such life cannot sustain itself because it was created and doesn't possess life inherently, and therefore, must be continually upheld by God, who alone possesses life inherently.

Now if everlasting punishment is being absent from everlasting life, which is only sustained by God, then the logical outcome ends up being death, not something everlasting. Just as a prisoner serving a life sentence without parole will eventually die.

Also, punishment/torment without end is no longer punishment/torment, but torture. Punishment always serves a purpose. It has a beginning and moves towards a resolution.

 

[timothyu]

Punishment always serves a purpose. It has a beginning and moves towards a resolution.

Hence a short human life

 

[ARBITER01]

I do not disagree there is a distinction between what transpires between Satan and human kind. However, if everlasting punishment can be argued as simply a state absent from everlasting life, then this only goes to support my view.

Only God is eternal, having no beginning or end and existing outside of time. Everything else that exists has a beginning and is therefore subject to time. Immortality and everlasting life do not mean timelessness, but unending life from a point forward. Such life cannot sustain itself because it was created and doesn't possess life inherently, and therefore, must be continually upheld by God, who alone possesses life inherently.

Now if everlasting punishment is being absent from everlasting life, which is only sustained by God, then the logical outcome ends up being death, not something everlasting. Just as a prisoner serving a life sentence without parole will eventually die.

Also, punishment/torment without end is no longer punishment/torment, but torture. Punishment always serves a purpose. It has a beginning and moves towards a resolution.

Hmmmm,....

You do understand that the eternal human spirit that GOD breathed into Adam has carried down to you also, correct? That "eternal" part does not somehow die off.

 

[timothyu]

That "eternal" part does not somehow die off.

Is that not like the eternal radio signal (life) broadcasting that is received until only each radio (us) is kaput and no longer receives? Life is a constant unlike the creations that are animated by it

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT

This thread was moved from General Theology as discussions about annihilationism belongs in this forum​

 

[Mark Quayle]

I think God is more interested in elimination than punishment.

Why? Scripture to that effect? Can you show that the two are, or are not, the same thing? I'm wondering if, in God's economy, it is a category error to compare the two.

But, if the Devil and his hordes are to be punished forever and ever, is God going to show unfair favoritism toward humans by eliminating them instead of subjecting them to eternal conscious torment? Why—are those made in the image of God who insist on enmity with God, possessing of any good in and of themselves? When God removes all his virtues from them, are they any better or more deserving of God's favor than the demons?

 

[timothyu]

is God going to show unfair favoritism toward humans by eliminating them

Humans rejected eternal life.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Humans rejected eternal life.

Did not the devil and his demons reject eternal life? They rejected God, their own Creator, and life forever with Him and His Bride.

—Why should their penalty be any worse?

 

[timothyu]

Did not the devil and his demons reject eternal life?

No

 

[Mark Quayle]

No

What —God's holy angels won't live forever?

 

[A Devil's Advocate]

Hmmmm,....

You do understand that the eternal human spirit that GOD breathed into Adam has carried down to you also, correct? That "eternal" part does not somehow die off.

You are asserting that the eternal spirit God breathed into Adam has life inherent. God cannot create another eternal being. Anything God creates has a beginning and is therefore not eternal. Just as, for anything to be immortal or everlasting requires that it is sustained by something greater... an eternal source. What purpose would it serve God to sustain someone forever who has chosen to reject Him? If it's for the sole purpose of punishment, then that is no longer punishment.

God breathing life into Adam is fundamentally the same things as creating Adam. God is eternal, yes, but this does not assume the life He breathed into Adam is eternal without His sustaining power.

 

[ARBITER01]

You are asserting that the eternal spirit God breathed into Adam has life inherent. God cannot create another eternal being. Anything God creates has a beginning and is therefore not eternal. Just as, for anything to be immortal or everlasting requires that it is sustained by something greater... an eternal source. What purpose would it serve God to sustain someone forever who has chosen to reject Him? If it's for the sole purpose of punishment, then that is no longer punishment.

God breathing life into Adam is fundamentally the same things as creating Adam. God is eternal, yes, but this does not assume the life He breathed into Adam is eternal without His sustaining power.

Totally expected.

What do you think "born again" means?