- Mar 18, 2003
- 47,577
- 27,116
- 76
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So then such punishments are Just and have purpose but only because it ends in death. Am not sure how to logically go from that to saying it would be injust and have no purpose if it never endedNo, I think they are just and I am pro capital punishment, and I'm actually not so much pro, life sentences. Probably because I have hope for dead in the hereafter. Life sentences are just delaying death and not prolonging life IMO.
I will play but again cannot take this leap. If a punishment has purpose and it is said to be just then how does it go to unjust simply because it never ends. The only "purpose" of either capital or life sentences is a separation from the "living", which is one of the same purposes eternal damnation serves in the next life. It is the separation itself which serves purpose, and only ends in this life because our current bodies are not immortal - which has nothing to do with the Justice or purpose of such sentences. Both in this life and the next (more Perfectly), such punishments also demonstrate what is Just to the "living" and would give them Joy at having the Grace given to escape the same fate as well as appreciate more the debt paid to make their Joy possible.I agree...temporal purpose. Eternal torture is not just, and eternal punishing, accomplishes nothing fitting the definition of punishment.
We were not speaking of mistakes in judgment - we were talking about whether a sentence that is permanent has a purpose and could be Just - apparently we agree such a sentence could be both Just and serve a purpose in this life, even with fallible men. Which leads me to say one is then having men capable of doing something one claims God cannot do (else He is unjust and cruel)I disagree. Here, we have fallible men making unjust decisions. Sending innocent men to death and imprisonment.
Am unclear how it be to His Glory to demonstrate for all that who freely chose to NOT separate themselves from Him that such a choice did not ultimately matter because in the greater scheme the choices made in this temporal life did not matter. We could drink and be merry and ultimately in the end - all reach the same point. Somehow that does not seem to be for the betterment of all, Just or to His Glory.God is not fallible and his judgments will be for the betterment of all, as well as to his glory.
This is my point, we are incapable of His Standard without His Grace, a Grace He made possible for all - but does not force on any. We were meant to cooperate with that Grace in this life in order to be restored in a proper relationship with Him in the next - which means essentially asking for His forgiveness when we act against our nature, being truly sorry for doing so and trying are best 9with His Grace) not to do it anymore.Why 'to His glory'? One reason might be because He will not hold us to a higher standard than God Himself will not keep.
Matthew 6:15 but if you do not forgive men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.
So then one must be claiming there is nothing just about capital punishments or life sentences - which has been my point. I think capital punishments and life sentences can be Just and as such absolutely have purpose.
The sentiment being expressed here is that only punishments that are 'corrective' are Just and have purpose. Am just pointing out that sentiment, while sweet and sincere, is wrong.
In such constructs of an afterlife there are no true eternal consequences for our choice to separate ourselves from God - only a potential temporary set back in the next life before we can "proceed on".
The choice to separate oneself from the Eternal must have eternal consequence. If God was not eternal, then that would not be so. He is Eternal, so the eternalness of such choice is the very reason the single sin of one man spans time to condemn us all, putting us all in the need of Savior.
I have been following your debate with Hillsage with interest and would agree with a fair deal of your reasoning (bit worrying if I didn't really) but your final point I have quoted from you is where I have a difficulty. I'm not sure that Scripture regards the actions of the wicked as being "a conscious choice to seperate themselves from God". Nor would they see or understand it in those terms. The emphasis of God's purposes in judgement according to Scripture, not least by the One who will be doing the judging (e.g. Mt7:2) is more often than not expressed in terms of our treatment of our fellow creatures than our enlightenment concerning the Creator and how He wishes us to relate to Him. Why? - because there can be no excuse for acting wickedly against our fellow man because the requirement (to respect and care for him) is affirmed through our conscience.
A philanthropic agnostic on the other hand may sincerely believe there is no God or at least not be certain of the matter yet in practice may often act as God would wish him in terms of his fellow man (cf. Rom2:14,15 Greek). Why - because he has been made in the image of God (though he doesn't know it) and something of that is retained, again through the influence of conscience (what JH Newman regarded as the divinely provided faculty of universal revelation). The purpose of punishment according to Scripture is indeed partially retributive - not merely restorative, but the retribution not so much concerns offences against God directly (who is rich in grace and delights to pardon) but against His people, indeed against all the weak and needy of the world with whom Christ personally identifies (Mt25). He will take His vengeance upon those who have cruelly neglected them and those who have "destroyed the earth" (Rev11:18). It shall be fair and proportional and potentially vastly more than a "temporary setback", they may in Jesus's words come to wish they had never have been born. But in view of the above I keep an open mind concerning God's long-term intentions knowing that He will never act against His nature, being love personified - the righteous anger and justice He possesses flowing from that nature rather than being in tension with it.
If any man's work is burned up, he will suffer loss, though he himself will be saved, but only as through fire.
Looks like judgment of fire in the hereafter is salvific, and not endless torture to me. I know the context, do you see the concept? . . .
Our wisdom is certainly limited compared to God, but He also gave us a mind to use. I went the opposite direction and am happier now.And "logic" may just be your main veil to seeing what I see. The wisdom of God is the foolishness of man and if our logic has a flawed beginning then it will take the Spirit to enlighten us. I know I had to lay my old 'logical' view down, when I too believed as you do now.
"The Lord knows that the thoughts of the wise are futile."
So you said repeatedly. Problem is the punishment of separation from the "living" is the same now as it will be in the next life. The duration of such punishment only has ending in this life because our bodies are currently mortal. If we were already immortal, then such a sentence would be identical to the one we are talking about.It does so when it goes from being a noun/punishment to a never ending hideous verb/punishing infinitely.
As I have said repeatedly, the purposes served for such punishment in this life are similar to that of the next. You had already agreed that both capital and life sentences serve purpose.Your view is purposeless and that's a logic that seems OK to your intellect and allows you to still cling to the eternal hell paradigm.
Hardly a logic issue.Houston we have a 'logical' problem. Who's guarding all these 'living' prisoners with all the other living PRISONERS? Unless they're in solitary confinement. A punishment which we generally speaking consider inhumane.Does that logically mean we are more merciful than God? You can probably justify that, I can't...logically.
Sure, but why require a Sacrifice at all if all that is needed is some amount (vary for everyone) of roasting to burn away the rejection/bad parts?Looks like judgment of fire in the hereafter is salvific, and not endless torture to me. I know the context, do you see the concept?
The demented part would be the mind which knows right from wrong - rejecting right and doing so through out this life with no regret/remorse. We are made to love, serve and know the Supreme Good. So our nature is to do that, it is what we were made to do, and so what we are suppose to do. To act against that is to reject the very purpose for which we were made - a direct slap in the face to the Creator.My logic fails here. Having a mortal body is absolutely part of the purpose. And that's why torture for eternity has no purpose. Sounds demented to me.
Without going deep into off topic areas,(calling, predestined...) the choice being spoken of and the ability for God to judge all men from all times, is the same for everyone. Everyone knows what is right and wrong because we were all made that way. God knowing our choices before we were made does not change our freedom to make those.And how does one 'freely choose' 'undeserved favor/grace if they are not "called, chosen, predestined, foreordained, elected" by God to make a 'free will decision' in this age?
No, am saying how we live this life would have no eternal consequence at all in a view which says everyone is ultimately saved. A pious\righteous life for example and one spent indulging in all manner of selfish pleasures would both gain the same eternal reward in such a view. The "punishment" in such a view is temporal. So party on Garth!I have to chuckle here. Are you talking about sinners deserving eternal torture or the representative church of today?
I do not see the orthodox view as limiting God. I do see Scripture limiting our shot at being restored to a single judgement on the way we live life here and no discussion of an ongoing ability to restore those who in your view do not make the first cut, but will ultimately be rehabilitated after the final judgement (which for them is not final in such a view). As to a purpose of the life in Glory - we are not told except to say it will blow our minds. I like the speculation found in "The Travelers Guide to Heaven" which really expands the limits on our imaginations more than anyone else I have read - including a use of body parts most of our Protestant brothers would blush at.I agree, just like He consigned all to sin that he migh have mercy on all. So apparently there is no do-er but God working thing out according to the counsel of his will and not ours. You just limit Him/all to 'this age' and I ask what's the purpose of the AGES to come then?
Read in context the letter to Timothy is talking about how to live this life, not the next. And read the next verse regarding these same people said to be "captive" of the devil. Have never heard of anyone considering the final fate of the damned being captive's of satan - in fact they end up same place he does - the same punishment - not his captives. I certainly think Satan has captives right now, but that is also temporal I think.No, he just "worketh in you both TO WILL and TO DO" so...willingly. He gives you the faith to believe when he 'calls' you. For faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the RHEMA/word of God, not the logos/bible. You intimated 'repentance' on our part, but what does scripture say? "God may perhaps grant that they will repent and come to know the truth" Sounds like GOD, not me/them.
Am not sure how we can separate the two (body/soul) in terms of our eternal fate. In the end, scripture has both body and soul of the damned thrown into the same place. In most orthodox views the resurrected body of the damned is immortal (not a Glorified body which apparently means much more than just an immortal body), just like our souls are immortal.Please understand, I am talking about one salvation is all this. That of the spirit. Soul/body salvation are separate in my theology. I am Calvinist and Amenianist. Kind of like the term Calmenian actually.
Going to my baby sister's son's high school grad. and will be gone all day. You all play nice now.
And I am happy that you are happier. And I have enjoyed our talk. Not because you or I 'won', but because I believe you've maintained a brotherly attitude.Our wisdom is certainly limited compared to God, but He also gave us a mind to use. I went the opposite direction and am happier now.
Closer to God is worthy for sure. And my leaving the RC church was definitely motivated differently than the last church we'd been in for 23 years.While I think the doctrines are wrong, I would rather have someone in a place that truly brings them closer to God than to be somewhere else. For what it is worth however and it seems true in your case, many leave not really knowing or understanding what they left. The Church and families in it are not doing a very good job teaching children about their faith these days.
I does in my POV. How we live here does not determine going to 'heaven'. If it did, most of the church wouldn't make it IMO. It looks/acts too much like much of the world IMO. But works here will determine rewards there IMO.No, am saying how we live this life would have no eternal consequence at all in a view which says everyone is ultimately saved.
So no OSAS in your opinion?A pious\righteous life for example and one spent indulging in all manner of selfish pleasures would both gain the same eternal reward in such a view. The "punishment" in such a view is temporal. So party on Garth!
Thou dost tempt me to read this embarrassing work."The Travelers Guide to Heaven" which really expands the limits on our imaginations more than anyone else I have read - including a use of body parts most of our Protestant brothers would blush at.
Which is why we will probably go round and round to little avail. Probably a good time to part...again. You see, my paradigm allows for so many issues dividing the church today. Things like OSAS vs. loosing your salvation, predestination vs. free will. It also explains things most don't even question. Things like You in Christ/Christ in you, in the faith/of the faith, imputed righteousness/imparted righteousness, one baptism/baptisms.Am not sure how we can separate the two (body/soul) in terms of our eternal fate. In the end, scripture has both body and soul of the damned thrown into the same place. In most orthodox views the resurrected body of the damned is immortal (not a Glorified body which apparently means much more than just an immortal body), just like our souls are immortal.
No.So no OSAS in your opinion?
He is Catholic but a lay person and up front about trying to write this to appeal to all Christian faiths. We are not told much about what Heaven would be like, but given what was said the old traditional Protestant idea of being in robs and singing for eternity never sounded appealing to me. The author does take a lot of liberty on what Jesus meant by it would blow our minds.Thou dost tempt me to read this embarrassing work.
...................Sorry Hillsage you're not convincing me for UR and I think you're taking passages out of context. So once again let's try this:
Matthew 25:41(NKJV)-Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels
So how do you explain that verse? Depart from me where? Why did Jesus say this?
By the way I'm not asking for my benefit but want a UR believer to explain these warning passages to me.
Then to be consistent with the "proper" translation - neither can the state of those in Glory be everlasting or eternal. Which is apparently is ok with some folks here. Why they call it controversial....................
The context of Matthew 25:41 is "When the Son of man shall come in His glory..." (verse 31) -- NOT any final judgment. And more proof that Christ is not speaking of a final judgment (the Great White Throne judgment), is in the fact that He goes on to say in verse 31 "then."
"...then" (at Christ's appearance, not a 1000 years later) "shall He sit upon the throne of His glory" (verse 31). And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another..." (verse 32).
The above scriptures give evidence that the Greek word "aionios" cannot be properly translated as "everlasting" or "eternal" since the subject here is only a temporary judgment. It plainly does not have "everlasting" consequences -- which is further indicated by the nature of the misdeeds: "For I was an hungry, and ye gave me no meats: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not." It is absolutely ludicrous to suppose that anyone will suffer ETERNAL punishment for sins such as this!
Furthermore, just as we cannot GAIN our salvation by our good works, neither can we ultimately LOSE our salvation by our evil works. Yes, God can and will take us to the 'woodshed' for our sins, but our salvation, and that of the world (John 1:29; I John 2:2), is secure in Christ.
The context of Matthew 25:41 is "When the Son of man shall come in His glory..." (verse 31) -- NOT any final judgment. And more proof that Christ is not speaking of a final judgment (the Great White Throne judgment), is in the fact that He goes on to say in verse 31 "then."
"...then" (at Christ's appearance, not a 1000 years later) "shall He sit upon the throne of His glory" (verse 31). And before Him shall be gathered all nations: and He shall separate them one from another..." (verse 32).
The above scriptures give evidence that the Greek word "aionios" cannot be properly translated as "everlasting" or "eternal"since the subject here is only a temporary judgment. It plainly does not have "everlasting" consequences -- which is further indicated by the nature of the misdeeds: "For I was an hungry, and ye gave me no meats: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink. I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not." It is absolutely ludicrous to suppose that anyone will suffer ETERNAL punishment for sins such as this!
Furthermore, just as we cannot GAIN our salvation by our good works, neither can we ultimately LOSE our salvation by our evil works. Yes, God can and will take us to the 'woodshed' for our sins, but our salvation, and that of the world (John 1:29; I John 2:2), is secure in Christ.
Sorry Hillsage you're not convincing me for UR and I think you're taking passages out of context. So once again let's try this:
Matthew 25:41(NKJV)-Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels
So how do you explain that verse? Depart from me where? Why did Jesus say this?
By the way I'm not asking for my benefit but want a UR believer to explain these warning passages to me.
I did and I told you that it didn't convince me. I'll give you credit though you did a good job of providing your end but still didn't convince me that UR is true.
Now do you want to respond to the verse in my last post?
The Concordant Literal New Testament gives us a good translation of Matthew 25:46:
"And these shall be coming away into chastening eonian, yet the just into life eonian."
In other words, God's saints will have the privilege of reigning with Christ during the millennial age. Clearly, the fact that the Bible doesn't teach eternal punishment, does not preclude what amounts to eternal life for the saved.
And you know that "the Concordant Literal New Testament gives a good translation," how? That someone, somehow, can find a version, somewhere that supports their assumptions/presuppositions does not make it correct.
So you have found a version, somewhere that appears to support your assumptions/presuppositions, now you want to reinterpret Matt 25:46 to say something it does not say. Here is Matt 25:46 again.
Mat 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.Please explain to me how "ζωὴν αἰώνιον"/zoen aionion becomes "have the privilege of reigning with Christ during the millennial age" and "eternal life." But κόλασιν αἰώνιον/kolasin aionion, does not mean eternal punishment? What happens to the saints when the millenium ends?
Still waiting for the answer to my first quote.
I answered your first quote in post #215. You never refuted my answer, nor did you comment on it other than saying it was "out of context". I believe you're wrong on that point. I quoted the very same scripture you questioned, in 3 translations you don't agree with. Comment on those translations.
And now you want to move on to another verse 25:41. You mentioned 'context', and that is good. But what is the context of this verse 41? It is a judgment of WORKS and whether or not Jesus 'knew' them in those works of verses 35-36. Nothing in that judgment had to do with 'them knowing Jesus' as their savior, but only 'knowing Jesus as their Lord' in obedience. Then he compares them to the ones who did do 'righteous' deeds in verse 38. And where, you ask, did 'did Jesus depart to'?; I'd say the same place God departed to when He tells us/believers to "draw near unto me and I will draw near unto you". So where was God 'departed' to in that verse, is my answer to your question. Do you understand it? It has to do with imputed righteousness vs imparted righteousness, as well as the Bema judgment seat of Christ which is based upon works and not being born again.
2CO 5:10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?