Sunday, July 22, 2007

The Doctrine of Hell

The doctrine of Hell is arguably one of the most difficult in orthodox Christianity.

But, for a moment consider Christian doctrine as is, without an infinite Hell.

So what happens when sinners die?
1. Heaven (universalism)
2. Dissolution (Jehovah's Witness)
3. Reincarnation (Hinduism, New Age)
4. Finite Hell (or Purgatory)

1. Universalism destroys the notion of justice. This is saying unrepentant murderers will be with God in Heaven.

2. Dissolution is nearly as bad. Live your life as please, scoff at God, kill and steal, live it up! When you die, it's all over, but you lived as you pleased. No justice here on Earth, and none from God.

3. Reincarnation. This is just a goto 10. I mean, there has to be a last generation. Either when the great and terrible "Day of the Lord" comes, or at the heat death of the universe (for the amillenialists in the audience). And it's not very just in the near term. I should suffer now for the crimes of some person who died around the time I was born? And what if the global population levels off?

4. Finite Hell. This is very attractive. Probably why the Catholic Church was able to sneak Purgatory past people long ago. But there is a problem if you work it all the way through...

What is the payment for sin? (And conversely, what is the damage done by sin?)

If the payment is finite, then it is something we can earn for ourselves. Either doing some things during life, or some hard time in Hell after. But then, our account is all squared up.

So then, why did Christ die? Some sort of horrible mix up? An unnecessary tragedy? To save a few people some hard time in Hell?

And what is God's nature? Is sin a finite transgression against an infinite being? Or is it an infinite transgression? A finite transgression would appear the same as 0 to an infinite being. So really, no one would need to spend more than a few hours in Hell.

Except, God is infinite. And sin is infinitely offensive to Him. And we need an infinite payment. Christ's death paid that. And for those who reject Him, an eternity in Hell will pay it too (at least, approaching it in the limit).

37 comments:

TheDen said...

Hello Ned,

Came over here from Heddle's blog. As you probably know, I'm Catholic.

Just wanted to give a little clarification. Purgatory is not a finite Hell. Everyone in Purgatory is saved.

Purgatory is a purification process before one can fully enter into heaven. Everyone in Purgatory goes to Heaven. Nobody there goes to Hell. In order to enter heaven, one must be perfect. If there are imperfections, if there are impurities in your soul as a result of sin, then they must be made pure.

Christ paid for the atonement but there are still scars from the life of sin that must heal. If these haven't fully healed before our death then there's a purification process--a purging--that is done before one enters heaven.

It's a pretty deep concept but it is Scriptural and is not Hell in any stretch of the imagination.

nedbrek said...

Hello,
I will probably do a specific Catholic theology post. But let me give you a few passages to consider:

The Catholic Encyclopedia (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm)
lists Matthew 12:31, and 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 as supporting Purgatory.

The Matthew passage is probably hyperbole, just as when Paul says "height, width, breadth, and depth" doesn't mean there are four dimensions.

Corinthians is referring to the judgment of the saved. Our works will be judged, and we will be rewarded. Some will have no works, but they will be saved.

Compare with Luke 23:43 (the thief goes directly to paradise), Luke 16:20 (Lazarus goes directly to paradise), Acts 7:59 (Stephen seems to be going directly to paradise), and 1 John 5:16 (a difficult passage which seems to say don't bother praying for the dead).

Thanks!

TheDen said...

Hello Ned,

All people do not necessarily go to Purgatory. Only those who need purification. I'm sure there are some people who do go straight to heaven. I hope to be one but if I end up in Purgatory first, that's okay too as it means that I will see heaven.

Regarding the Scripture passages, I think the supporting passage from Matthew 12 is not verse 31 but rather verse 32.

In verse 32, Jesus mentions that the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven in "this age or in the age to come."

This implies that some sins are forgiven in the age to come. If a person is in Hell, then no sins are forgiven. He is already damned. If sins are forgiven in the age to come, it must be done in Purgatory.

Regarding 1 Corinthians 3:11-15, it says that at judgment, our works will be revealed with fire.

The person must have a foundation of Christ and our works if perfect will be made of Gold, silver or precious stones. As we go through the fire, we will be made more pure .

However, if our works are not perfect, if we built on the foundation with wood, hay, or straw, then that person will be saved but only after they suffer loss. Only after their imperfect works are burned up in the fire will they be saved.

That is a perfect explanation of how Purgatory works. Our imperfections must be removed before we can enter Heaven. We must be perfect as our heavenly Father is perfect before we can be in His presence.

Regarding 1 John 5:16, it mentions two types of sin. A deadly sin and a sin that does not lead to death. If a person has sin that is not deadly, that means that they are still saved but they are still imperfect and need to go through the purging process.

The Catholic Church differentiates between these two sins as mortal and venial. A mortal sin causes spiritual death and one must be reconciled with God. The venial sin is a minor sin that affects our relationship but does not quite sever it.

nedbrek said...

I guess it comes down to your understanding of salvation.

Is salvation it a gift from God? Is something we can earn (or a gift we can lose)?

If it is something we can earn, then we can fail to earn it (partially, where it is completed in Purgatory; or entirely - mortal sin).

But if we earn it, then it is not a gift from God. He owes us. That means God is indebted to us. I don't think the Bible teaches that at any point.

TheDen said...

I'm pretty sure we may have different understandings of Salvation. Here's my take:

--Salvation is a gift from God

--Salvation is NOT something we can earn

--It is possible to lose our salvation



Neither the Bible nor the Catholic Church teaches that we can earn our Salvation. Salvation is purely a gift from God. 1 Corinthians 3 is not a judgement of our works for Salvation. As it says, our Salvation lies in the foundation that is Jesus Christ. However, we must be purged of impurities and made perfect before we can be in the presence of God.

Regarding losing our Salvation, Paul tells us to work out our Salvation in fear and trembling (Philippians 2:12) which means to me that we do not take it for granted. Our Salvation is not truly assured until we are judged by God after we die. Only He can tell us if we are saved. Still, I have faith and trust in the Lord that I will remain obedient to Him and love Him above all things (through His grace). Shame on me if I don't.

GCT said...

"This is saying unrepentant murderers will be with God in Heaven."

Take unrepentant out of there and they will be with god in heaven, no?

"I should suffer now for the crimes of some person who died around the time I was born?"

Oh, the irony. I've got two words to say here:
Original Sin

"So then, why did Christ die?"

Can you tell me how it makes any sense? How does a human sacrifice somehow absolve us all of sin? Is god a bloodthirty being that will have an unending supply now because of Jesus? Is capital punishment just and moral? How did people sinning somehow get paid by doing something even worse, i.e. killing the only non-sinner? The whole entire notion makes no sense at all.

nedbrek said...

GCT:
Yes, murderers can go to heaven. At the time of repentance, all sins (past, present, and future) are transferred to Jesus, and Jesus' perfect record is applied to the sinner's account.

Karma says I suffer for the sins of someone dead. Original sin says we live in a fallen world (filled with suffering). Our suffering doesn't pay any price or make anything better. More on that when I address the problem of evil.

The cross serves many purposes. It pays the price for sin (no forgiveness without blood). The price tells us about the severity of the damage done. If you break something in the store, you pay the price. The severity of the cross shows us how serious sin is to God.

Two: the cross is foolishness to the world (especially to the Jewish and Roman worlds at that time). It pleases God to bring wisdom and salvation through what seems foolish.

There are a number of beautiful references to the Old Testament, which you would probably not appreciate...

GCT said...

"Karma says I suffer for the sins of someone dead. Original sin says we live in a fallen world (filled with suffering)."

Because of the sins of someone dead.

I find the mantra of "No forgiveness without blood" to be barbaric. As Ghandi said, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." [paraphrased, as I'm sure that wasn't the exact quote.] But, it certainly underscores the bloodthirsty nature of your god.

Do you have any support for the notion that it pleases god to bring wisdom and salvation through what seems foolish? Further, do you have any evidence that the Jews and Romans thought crucifixion was foolish? In fact, I would think that they would take it very seriously, as it was one of the more horrible ways to die.

And, I'm still not seeing how the human sacrifice of the supposedly most perfect human alive is at all just. Also, remember that Jesus was not perfect according to his own sermons. In the sermon on the mount he says that becoming angry with someone is tantamount to murder, yet he becomes angry with quite a few people and even goes so far as to physically whip people. That hardly sounds like one who does not sin. He is at least guilty of being a hypocrit.

SteveK said...

It pays the price for sin (no forgiveness without blood).

This isn't entirely accurate as evidenced by the various atonements of the old testament (grain offering, etc). No blood required there. Forgiveness requires a sacrifice which manifests itself physically in different ways.

However, a complete and perfect forgiveness requires something more and that 'something' is found in the person of Christ. He submitted and gave up everything he had even though he was God. It's the ultimate sacrifice, meaning there is no way for anyone to sacrifice more than this.

nedbrek said...

On the shedding of blood:
Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

On the foolishness of the cross:
1 Corinthians 21b "it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe."

When I say "the cross", that is short for "the suffering and death of Jesus Christ on the cross to pay the price for our sins". Much shorter...

So yes, to the Jews there is no more shameful death ("(for he that is hanged [is] accursed of God;)" Deuteronomy 21:23b). And the Romans knew the cross was reserved for rebels and petty criminals.

On Jesus' anger:
Matthew 5:22 "whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment".

You missed the "without a cause". Jesus had righteous anger at the money changers (and also, most likely, with the leper in Mark 1:40).

Jesus' death demonstrates love and mercy, not justice. The just thing would be for us to die and for Jesus to live. "But God commendeth His love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." (Romans 5:8).

Justice is served, in that the price is paid. To not have anyone pay the price would be injustice.

GCT said...

"However, a complete and perfect forgiveness requires something more and that 'something' is found in the person of Christ."

I'm told that we deserve infinite torture because our sins are infinitely offensive to god. If Jesus's suffering and death are to be worthy of "payment" for our infinite crimes, then they must also be infinite in duration. That is not the case however, so I fail to see how Jesus "paid the price for us." This is in addition to the fact that it simply makes no sense how this would benefit us in any way. Why does god demand sacrifices at all?

GCT said...

Nedbrek,
I doubt that the "without cause" is actually part of the Bible as it comes from the KJV (a notoriously bad version as you should know from reading Ehrman) and no other translations seem to have it. Even so, Jesus becomes angry at a man who approaches him looking to be healed (also from Ehrman) and there was no cause there. Finally, becoming angry and physically whipping people are indeed separate occurrences and Jesus had no cause for causing physical harm on anyone else.

"Justice is served, in that the price is paid. To not have anyone pay the price would be injustice."

How was the price paid? How did Jesus dying do anything for me, especially since he popped right back up. How did a god feel the pain of death? Even so, it was transitory, but supposedly my sins are infinite. This makes no sense. Further, how does killing an innocent somehow absolve me of my sins? Why does god demand blood? I see that you quote from the Bible where god shows his affinity for blood, but why does he have this affinity?

Now, it gets even more difficult. Why do we need to be punished at all? god made us this way, so he seems to be punishing us for being the way we are. Further, we can only have Jesus pay our price if god selects us to have our price paid, which really makes it moot. god is selecting those who will be saved, so it seems that he is selectively deciding those whom he will forgive. This leaves no need for Jesus. Further, if god is all loving and wants to forgive us, then the onus is on him to forgive us. Plus, he omni-everything, so I see a real problem with god setting up a universe where he would eventually have to come down in human form and act like he's sacrificing something in order to satisfy himself that he can allow himself to forgive us for the way that he made us. This is so convoluted that it makes no sense at all.

SteveK said...

Ned:
Hebrews 9:22 "And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission."

You can't deny the fact that grain offerings and such were acceptable. That's all I'm saying so your blanket statement is not accurate.

GCT:
I'm told that we deserve infinite torture because our sins are infinitely offensive to god.

This isn't a fair and accurate statement. A more accurate way of saying it would be 'we deserve justice because our sins are unjust'.

Why do we need to be punished at all? god made us this way, so he seems to be punishing us for being the way we are.

God didn't make us this way. He made us capable of becoming this way, but he didn't make us this way. There is a difference and I hope you can see this.

SteveK said...

GCT:
Further, if god is all loving and wants to forgive us, then the onus is on him to forgive us.

I don't know if you are arguing for the sake of argument, or if you truly don't understand and are seeking a real answer.

Ask yourself what it means to be loving in your own life. Is it loving to let injustices prevail in your home? I think it's obviously not loving because someone gets less then what is owed to them. The loving and fair thing to do is to require justice - equal justice for all (sounds Superman-ish).

Loving requires forgiveness as you say (and the Bible says this too), but loving also requires justice. They can't be separated. A love that lets injustices prevail isn't the kind of love that anyone really wants-especially if you are on the wrong side of justice.

GCT said...

"This isn't a fair and accurate statement. A more accurate way of saying it would be 'we deserve justice because our sins are unjust'."

OK, and do you think that infinite punishment is a just sentence for finite crimes? Are our sins infinitely unjust? If not, then we do not deserve infinite punishment.

"God didn't make us this way. He made us capable of becoming this way, but he didn't make us this way. There is a difference and I hope you can see this."

Nonsense. He created us fully knowing that we would sin against him and did nothing about it. He intended it to happen. Further, his punishment against Adam and Eve was that we would be born in sin against him. He is directly responsible for us being born the way we are.

"I don't know if you are arguing for the sake of argument, or if you truly don't understand and are seeking a real answer."

I'm showing you that it doesn't make any sense.

"Ask yourself what it means to be loving in your own life. Is it loving to let injustices prevail in your home? I think it's obviously not loving because someone gets less then what is owed to them. The loving and fair thing to do is to require justice - equal justice for all (sounds Superman-ish)."

This skirts the whole issue. Is it loving to punish my dog because she's not supposed to be on the couch? Now, is it loving if I placed her on the couch in the first place and then punished her for it? Or how about this, is it loving to torture my significant other for injuring me in some way? Does the punishment fit the crime? Should she be punished eternally? If I do punish her eternally, does that prove somehow that I love her? This is utter nonsense.

"Loving requires forgiveness as you say (and the Bible says this too), but loving also requires justice."

No, justice and love are two separate things that do not necessarily require each other. If a spouse has an affair, love might make the partner forgive, but justice would not necessarily forgive.

"A love that lets injustices prevail isn't the kind of love that anyone really wants-especially if you are on the wrong side of justice."

Sure it is. Love is when you can overcome those petty quarrels and not require justice. Let's say my SO breaks something of mine, it might be just for her to have something of hers broken, but I forgive her instead and we go on with our lives. What is wrong with that?

Let's bring it back to god though. God is neither loving nor just. If god truly loved us, he could not send us to hell. If god was truly just, he likewise could not send us to hell (at least not for eternity.) Justice requires that the punishment fit the crime in severity. Torture is not a fitting punishment for any crime against god, nor is infinite punishment. Seeing as how god is omni-everything, I have serious doubts as to how I can injure god at all. Further, god made us this way. Even further, we are in a state of rebellion unless and until god changes our hearts. So, god is punishing us for not coming to him even though we can not, i.e. we are being punished for not being able to accomplish the impossible. This is not loving or just.

SteveK said...

GCT:
OK, and do you think that infinite punishment is a just sentence for finite crimes? Are our sins infinitely unjust? If not, then we do not deserve infinite punishment.

Christianity teaches that we are born into original sin, thus you can think of this as perpetually sinning in finite 'steps' for as long as we remain in this condition. Tying this to my last comment about loving, justice must be served and so justice is served in equally finite 'steps' as we remain sinning. So really there is no imbalance here. As long as we remain in our condition we remain subject to justice.

Nonsense. He created us fully knowing that we would sin against him and did nothing about it.

Your 'nonsense' comment can't directed toward what I said because my comment speaks to what Christianity teaches. Your gripe seems to be against God starting the ball rolling in the first place. You hold God responsible and assume his action actually made things worse. You can think that if you want, but our collective experience tells us what God did is better than not doing it.

Our collective experience tells us it's better to 'create' a child knowing full well it will suffer in life and eventually die. We know it's better to let the scenario play out than it is to not even start it.

Your complaint would be valid if it was known that doing nothing was the best decision. Obviously God didn't think that, and he knows.

Now, is it loving if I placed her on the couch in the first place and then punished her for it?

This is a flawed analogy. God didn't make original sin, therefore he did not 'put us on the couch'.

Does the punishment fit the crime? Should she be punished eternally?

I explained that above.

Love is when you can overcome those petty quarrels and not require justice.

So overlooking injustice is loving? Based on your complaint against God it's obvious you don't really believe this. You are accusing God of being unloving because he is requiring justice. Why don't you follow your own advise and overcome your petty quarrel with God?

nedbrek said...

GCT, Steve has given an excellent response.

Let me add:

"He created us fully knowing that we would sin against him and did nothing about it."

He did do something.

From before the creation of the universe Jesus was made a sacrifice for us (1 Peter 1:20).

GCT, you know the character of God. It seems like death to you (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). Repent! Turn from your sins. Trust in Jesus for salvation. Read your Bible every day, and find a good, Bible based church.

nedbrek said...

theden, not sure if you are still following:

1 John 5:13 "These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life".

You can know that you have eternal life. If you know it today, it cannot be lost tomorrow. We are bought with the blood of Christ, and the Holy Spirit seals us as the "down payment" from God of our inheritance. God will not let us go, or go back on His promise.

But as to purification, we are all sanctified at the time of repentance (1 Cor 6:11). We are "set apart" for God's purpose. We undergo continual sanctification during our lives (1 Thessalonians 4:3). But our perfection is of God, not anything we can do.

GCT said...

"Christianity teaches that we are born into original sin, thus you can think of this as perpetually sinning in finite 'steps' for as long as we remain in this condition."

So, we are punished for a condition that we had no control over? Sweet, that's justice right there, especially because it was god's decree that made us inherently sinful (and thus offensive to god.)

"Your 'nonsense' comment can't directed toward what I said because my comment speaks to what Christianity teaches."

Whether Christianity teaches it or not, it is still nonsense as in it doesn't make sense.

"You can think that if you want, but our collective experience tells us what God did is better than not doing it."

How will you ever back up this statement?

"Our collective experience tells us it's better to 'create' a child knowing full well it will suffer in life and eventually die. We know it's better to let the scenario play out than it is to not even start it."

Oh, we know that do we? How about you finish the analogy, that it's god that caused the suffering. Would you think that it would be good for a parent to have a child, knowing that the parent will knowingly inflict suffering on that child in the form of infinite torture? That's an absurd notion.

"Your complaint would be valid if it was known that doing nothing was the best decision. Obviously God didn't think that, and he knows."

This completely ignored the omni-ness of god and is no answer at all. It's also a false dichotomy to boot. The bottom line is that what happened was made to happen by god (otherwise god is not omni-everything.) Therefore, god created us to be in a default position of sinful and bound for hell. This is not justice, and it is not goodness.

"This is a flawed analogy. God didn't make original sin, therefore he did not 'put us on the couch'."

No, it's not flawed at all. God did make original sin. He placed two humans in the garden that had no knowledge of right and wrong, knowing full well what they would do, and then punished them for their ignorance. If he had not wanted them to eat from the fruit, then it would not have happened, period. Also, you ignored where I pointed out that god placed original sin on us as a punishment, therefore saying that it didn't come from god is breathtakingly wrong.

"I explained that above."

No, you did not. Should anyone be infinitely punished for finite transgressions? Even if it is tied to original sin, humans are not infinite, so even over the whole of human time it does not even approach the infinite unjustice of infinite punishment. If you think it does, then you need to brush up on what "infinity" means.

"So overlooking injustice is loving?"

Sometimes, yes, it is.

"You are accusing God of being unloving because he is requiring justice."

No, I'm accusing god of being unjust and unloving. The scriptures and logic back my position quite well (apart from the parts where god self-referentially says that he is just and good/loving, but his actions say otherwise.)

"Why don't you follow your own advise and overcome your petty quarrel with God?"

Because I do not like vindictive, bloodthirsty tyrants.

GCT said...

nedbrek,
"GCT, Steve has given an excellent response."

He did no such thing. I'm still waiting for anyone to counter the fact that god is responsible for all of our sins, etc. The only thing that I've seen so far is, "No he isn't."

"He did do something.

From before the creation of the universe Jesus was made a sacrifice for us (1 Peter 1:20)."

And you have yet to tell me how that does anything for me or anyone else. How does a finite sacrifice make up for supposedly infinite crimes? How does it make any sense at all? Why did god require a human sacrifice - is that the action of a loving/just god? You also haven't explained why it makes sense taken with the fact that god must select us as we are unable to come to god without him changing our hearts. That makes the Jesus "sacrifice" superfluous - if it did make any sense that is.

"GCT, you know the character of God."

Yes, and I've plainly laid it out to you using your own scriptures and logic.

"Repent!"

For what? For being how god made me? What a ridiculous notion. No, I will not say that all humans are bad and in need of saving. That is hateful rhetoric.

SteveK said...

How does a finite sacrifice make up for supposedly infinite crimes? How does it make any sense at all?

To say it makes no sense at all is so far reaching as to be disingenuous.

When a debt is owed you pay for it with something of equal (or greater) value. You and I can quibble over the value of sins and Christ's sacrifice, but that has no impact on the fact that this exchange makes sense to us.

Perhaps substitutionary atonement makes no sense to you? It may be difficult to understand completely, but to say it makes no sense at all is just plain silly.

Our legal system accepts this form of payment, and we accept it in our personal lives so, yes, it makes sense to us on some level.

GCT said...

Steve K,
"To say it makes no sense at all is so far reaching as to be disingenuous."

OK, then explain it in a way that is logical.

"When a debt is owed you pay for it with something of equal (or greater) value. You and I can quibble over the value of sins and Christ's sacrifice, but that has no impact on the fact that this exchange makes sense to us."

If I owe a debt to god, how does torturing Jesus do anything towards that debt? If I debt is infinite (thus meriting infinite punishment) how does a finite punishment of Jesus somehow make up for it? Simply saying, "Oh, it makes sense" is not enough. Tell me how it makes sense. Answer my objections.

"Perhaps substitutionary atonement makes no sense to you? It may be difficult to understand completely, but to say it makes no sense at all is just plain silly."

Yes, it makes no sense at all, for all of the reasons that I've cited that you've ignored.

"Our legal system accepts this form of payment, and we accept it in our personal lives so, yes, it makes sense to us on some level."

O Rly? So, if I volunteer to die for a guy on death row, the justice system will kill me instead and set him free?

SteveK said...

If I owe a debt to god, how does torturing Jesus do anything towards that debt?

I already went over that. A debt is reconciled if payed by something of equal or greater value. Do you disagree with this well-known and accepted method of debt reconciliation?

Yes, it makes no sense at all, for all of the reasons that I've cited that you've ignored.

I haven't ignored them, you just disagree with the explanation. Your disagreement is based on principle, and is not due to a lack of common understanding as I will get to next.

O Rly? So, if I volunteer to die for a guy on death row, the justice system will kill me instead and set him free?

I said it may be difficult to understand in the case of Christ, but the concept of substitutionary atonement is not foreign to us.

Which side determines if a substitutionary atonement is an acceptable form of payment? It's obvious the person owed the debt gets to determine this, not the person owing the debt. Have you ever heard of bartering?

So, yes, if you agree to die for some guy in prison and the justice system agrees to accept this as a payment for the debt owed then the debt is considered paid.

GCT said...

"I already went over that. A debt is reconciled if payed by something of equal or greater value. Do you disagree with this well-known and accepted method of debt reconciliation?"

Yes, in this case I do, for many reasons.

1. What is the debt? Is death a proper payment? How does Jesus dying somehow absolve me of this particular debt? If it were just money and Jesus paid it, that would be one thing, but that is not the situation, is it?
2. god forces this sinful nature on us, then makes us pay for it. But, for some god tortured himself as payment? Why did he not simply forgive?
3. We can only accept the payment if god chooses us to accept the payment. This makes the payment superfluous.

"I haven't ignored them, you just disagree with the explanation."

I'm sorry, was there an explanation in there? Let me check again....nope, not really.

"I said it may be difficult to understand in the case of Christ, but the concept of substitutionary atonement is not foreign to us."

So, do you think that my dying for a man on death row will be accepted? Substitutionary atonement is foreign to us. If it is a monetary fee, then someone else may pay for it, but in the case of jail time or more serious punishments, it is totally foreign to us. Do you think one of Paris Hilton's fans would have been allowed to serve her jail time for her?

"Which side determines if a substitutionary atonement is an acceptable form of payment? It's obvious the person owed the debt gets to determine this, not the person owing the debt."

And yet, in the case of Paris Hilton, would it make any sense for a fan to serve her jail time? Would it be justice? Would it be justice for me to die in the place of a death row inmate? Remember, you said that god is completely just, so you might want to actually answer these objections.

"Have you ever heard of bartering?"

Have you? Bartering is exchanging goods, trading. How does this have anything to do with the price of tea in China?

"So, yes, if you agree to die for some guy in prison and the justice system agrees to accept this as a payment for the debt owed then the debt is considered paid."

But, we don't. Why is that? I'll answer for you so that you can't ignore it. We don't because it would not be considered just, nor would it make sense. This is, however, exactly what you are saying does make sense and is just in the case of Jesus.

I'll also note that you've ignored the part about Jesus suffering being finite while we are supposedly committing infinite crimes.

TheDen said...

Ned,

Not really following GCT's comments as I'm pretty familiar with them.

Regarding your comments, I don't see things that way. Catholics do view things differently than Protestants on this.

If you have some questions about the Catholic viewpoint, I am more than willing to share them with you.

Essentially, we don't live for Salvation. We live for the here and now. The Kingdom of God is at Hand. Jesus has come and has called us to share in His everlasting life.

Christ has a message for all of us. It's to love God with all of your heart and that love is shared through obedience to Him.

His obedience to the Father brought Him to the Cross and our obedience to Him brings us to the Cross. His obedience to the Father brought Him everlasting life and our obedience to God brings it to us as well.

The focus is not on Salvation. The focus is on every aspect of our life. We don't think about God's grace affecting our salvation. We think about how God's grace through us affects others.

Unfortunately, most Catholics don't grasp it.

SteveK said...

1. What is the debt? Is death a proper payment? How does Jesus dying somehow absolve me of this particular debt? If it were just money and Jesus paid it, that would be one thing, but that is not the situation, is it?

You missed the part where I said the person owed the debt can choose to accept another form of payment. If you owe me $100, I may choose to accept a glass of water as payment. It's my choice. One thing I can't do is require you to pay more than what is owed as that would be unjust.

2. god forces this sinful nature on us, then makes us pay for it. But, for some god tortured himself as payment? Why did he not simply forgive?

Forced? You missed the part where I said God doesn't put us on the couch and then punish us for it. You also missed the part where I said your point would be valid if it can be shown that it was better for God to not do what he did. Can you do that?

3. We can only accept the payment if god chooses us to accept the payment. This makes the payment superfluous.

How so?

I'll answer for you so that you can't ignore it. We don't because it would not be considered just, nor would it make sense.

It is unjust only if it fails to reconcile the debt or if it was immoral.

I'll also note that you've ignored the part about Jesus suffering being finite while we are supposedly committing infinite crimes.

You missed the part where I explained that a debt is reconciled if payed by something of equal or greater value. Jesus' suffering was the highest sacrifice possible and so it is the highest form of payment. Sacrifice and sin are not quantitative concepts that can be considered finite anymore than love can be considered finite.

SteveK said...

Why did he not simply forgive?

I won't go as far as to say that this is not an option because it seems to me that it is one of the possibile choices. But, all things being equal, is forgiveness a requirement in order to avoid some other moral problem? No it's not.

Is the bank required to forgive the debt owed to them? No, but they can do that if they want. It's their prerogative just as substitutionary atonement is God's prerogative. It is no less moral to require payment than it is to forgive the debt--unless one action is known (keyword) to lead to a better state of affairs. In that case it would be immoral to treat them as equals.

GCT said...

"You missed the part where I said the person owed the debt can choose to accept another form of payment."

No, I specifically answered that. You, however did not do the same with the questions that this supposedly answered.

"One thing I can't do is require you to pay more than what is owed as that would be unjust."

Then you agree that infinite punishment is unjust. Thank you for that. You've just conceded the game.

"Forced? You missed the part where I said God doesn't put us on the couch and then punish us for it."

No, I specifically answered that as well, and seeing how all you did was make an assertion and I argued from a logical construction, I think the ball is in your court still.

"You also missed the part where I said your point would be valid if it can be shown that it was better for God to not do what he did. Can you do that?"

No, actually I answered that too. You are really bad at this. Of course, your point rests on the assumption that god is good and that if god has foreknowledge then he will use it for good. You have yet to show that god is good and will use his foreknowledge for good. In fact, your own scriptures tell quite a different story. Not only that, but yes, it's elementary to show that had god not made us sinful by nature, then we would be better off. Innocent until proven guilty is a much better system than guilty until forgiven by the judge.

"How so?"

Again, that is elementary. god's act of changing our heart is tantamount to his forgiving us. If he is going to forgive us (which is mercy, not justice) then the payment is unneccesary because god is showing mercy, which does not require payment.

"It is unjust only if it fails to reconcile the debt or if it was immoral."

And, how does Jesus dying do this? Can you give an example of this happening in real life?

"You missed the part where I explained that a debt is reconciled if payed by something of equal or greater value."

And you obviously don't grasp the concept of "infinity". If we are infinitely culpable, then no finite payment can pay our debt. It is logically impossible.

"Jesus' suffering was the highest sacrifice possible and so it is the highest form of payment."

And you are completely wrong. If I burn in hell for eternity, I am paying a higher sacrifice than Jesus by definition, because Jesus's sacrifice was finite, while mine would be infinite. That makes mine infinitely higher than Jesus's. You really don't understand infinity.

"Sacrifice and sin are not quantitative concepts that can be considered finite anymore than love can be considered finite."

Oh they can't? Why not? I don't think you can back up your statement. I am a finite being, it's doubtful that I can harm god at all. But, if I could, my transgressions can only be finite in nature. It is impossible for my finite being to cause infinite harm to god. So, when god punishes us infinitely, then he is infinitely unjust. The punishment does not fit the crime. If we are indeed guilty of infinite crime, then Jesus's finite sacrifice is inadequate to pay the debt. Your theology is so full of holes, I could drive a truch through it.

"But, all things being equal, is forgiveness a requirement in order to avoid some other moral problem? No it's not."

Actually, in god's case it is, else he has to infinitely torture us. Nevermind the fact that torture is immoral, but infinite punishment for finite crimes is immoral.

"Is the bank required to forgive the debt owed to them?"

I think you should stop talking about money and debts. Humans are more than simply money. We aren't talking about paying god back for the $20 you borrowed from him and having someone else pay the money for you. We're talking about jaywalking being punished with torture.

"It's their prerogative just as substitutionary atonement is God's prerogative."

But, if the bank dealt in lives, would they be satisfied with taking someone else's life? If they are moral, then no, they would not. (Nevermind that it would be immoral to deal in lives, but for the purpose of showing you where your analogy breaks down it will suffice.) Yes, it is god's prerogative, but it doesn't necessarily mean that god is just or good for doing it.

"It is no less moral to require payment than it is to forgive the debt--unless one action is known (keyword) to lead to a better state of affairs. In that case it would be immoral to treat them as equals."

Of course it is situational, but you have no evidence that god has your interests at heart. Your scriptures give ample evidence that god is a bloodthirsty, genocidal maniac. You have still not dealt with infinite vs. finite problems though. I realize that you tried to get out of it by saying that you can't really talk about it, but I have and I've laid things out. It is now your turn to bring something to the table or admit that my logic is strong. Of course, you've already conceded the game to me, and you don't even recognize it.

SteveK said...

Then you agree that infinite punishment is unjust. Thank you for that. You've just conceded the game.

Where did I say an infinite anything was unjust? I said requiring you to pay more than what is owed is unjust. All decisions have eternal consequences. Some are more important than others.

It is now your turn to bring something to the table or admit that my logic is strong. Of course, you've already conceded the game to me, and you don't even recognize it.

I don't understand why you think I have failed to bring something to the table. I think the emperor has no clothes and some aren't willing to admit that.

About "the game". I thought you were honestly seeking an understanding, at least as best as a human can understand such things, but I now see that you are merely playing a debating game. I am not and so I will quit wasting any more time with this.

GCT said...

"Where did I say an infinite anything was unjust? I said requiring you to pay more than what is owed is unjust."

Because it is logically impossible for me to owe infinitely, therefore the punishment far outstrips the crime and is unjust. I knew you wouldn't get it.

"I don't understand why you think I have failed to bring something to the table. I think the emperor has no clothes and some aren't willing to admit that."

Because you've not answered the logic conundrums I've presented, because your arguments are based on assertion with no logical backing, and the ones that you do try to back I've countered with real world examples that belie your arguments.

"About "the game". I thought you were honestly seeking an understanding, at least as best as a human can understand such things, but I now see that you are merely playing a debating game."

It's a figure of speech, and I'd be willing to bet that you knew exactly what I meant by it but are now hiding behind my choice of words as a way to weasel out of the uncomfortable position that you are in.

"I am not and so I will quit wasting any more time with this."

I knew it. People can be pretty predictable when they are beaten (not as in literally flogged, just so you know.) You are faced with some rather uncomfortable thoughts right now and you would rather run away than admit that I might be right about all this and that logic is against you. So be it.

GCT said...

It's a pity that you can't swim in the deep end, because I haven't even brought all my arguments to the fore yet. Here's another one for you. In our justice system, we generally think not just of punishment for crimes, but also of rehabilitation. Simply punishing someone does nothing to ensure that it won't happen again (except fear of more punishment which is not very loving is it?) Yet, god only does punishment, and once the punishment is levied, there is no chance for rehabilitation is there? Again, we find that the human system is superior morally to god's system.

So, why is this the case? The most likely explanation is that god never came up with this system at all (because god doesn't exist) but men did; men who were not as morally advanced as we are, so their laws and systems are less moral. It takes a special kind of cognitive dissonance to think that the god that they invented is somehow just and good.

nedbrek said...

GCT, theden is applying Proverbs 26:4-5.

The most likely reason there is no chance for rehabilitation is because God does not change. It appears that at the end of time we transition to a state with God where we are unchanging as well.

GCT said...

"GCT, theden is applying Proverbs 26:4-5."

Yes, I'm quite aware that I'm automatically thought a fool for not believing in your fairy tales. I think you meant Stevek BTW, and his "excuse" was pretty lame and transparently so.

"The most likely reason there is no chance for rehabilitation is because God does not change."

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China.

"It appears that at the end of time we transition to a state with God where we are unchanging as well."

And before the end of time? If god truly wants us to be with him, he should try to rehabilitate those unruly heathens like me. But, instead he simply tortures us. Sorry, but torture is wrong, period, even when god does it. Further, your god is supposedly omnimax. If he wants something to happen, it happens. So, that people go to hell can only be by design, i.e. he wants people to go to hell. This does not match up with your idea of an omnibenevolent god, hence either god does not exist, or god is not omnibenevolent. There is no way around this conundrum, especially since you can't hide behind free will.

nedbrek said...

Ah yes. Apologies to Steve and theden.

Omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. He cannot sin. He cannot create a rock so big He can't lift it.

He makes rules and promises. And He holds Himself to those rules and promises (He's only as good as His Word).

GCT said...

"Omnipotent does not mean God can do anything. He cannot sin. He cannot create a rock so big He can't lift it."

That depends on what you mean by "sin." But, if you mean that god can't make a square circle, so be it. Again, I have to ask what this has to do with the discussion at hand? Do you mean to say that god is incapable of not sending people to hell?

"He makes rules and promises. And He holds Himself to those rules and promises (He's only as good as His Word)."

What does this have to do with hell? Are you saying that god made a threat that he knew he would have to follow through on, and now he's compelled to follow through on it, so too bad for us? Does this demonstrate a loving god, or an intelligent god? No and no.

nedbrek said...

Exactly. God made the world such that disobeying Him is punishable by eternity in Hell.

Anything else would be inconsistent with His nature, or deprive us of our free will.

GCT said...

"Exactly. God made the world such that disobeying Him is punishable by eternity in Hell."

Then god is not loving and god does not wish that all people will be saved from hell. You can't have it both ways.

"Anything else would be inconsistent with His nature, or deprive us of our free will."

Whether he sends us to hell or not has nothing to do with our free will. How did you connect those two dots? Lack of punishment does not make you an automaton.