A Philosophical Look at Hell

[Guest ninhao]

I am not sure how well I will be able to respond to this one Ninhao, because I am not sure I understand it really,

sorry, but I will give it a shot.

You really like that word logic. I consider myself a reasonably logical person, but I try not to depend on my

logic, to answer spiritual questions, because I know that my ways are not Gods ways my thoughts are not His thoughts,

and vice versa. I cannot reason my way to how God thinks or works, it makes little to no sense, for me to think that I can make sense of it, apart from Gods revelation. Odd example, but if God says bananas are purple, then He is right and I am wrong, the best I can do is to try to fathom why I am wrong, and if I cannot, then just agree with God.

Logic is not the best tool, revelation is.

Yes I do like the word logic Revelation definitely trumps logic I agree so lets examine this.

You earlier supported the claim that a sin against an infinite God brought an infinite sentence. Correct me if I have this wrong but I think it is correct. Do you suggest this is revelation ? If so please provide for me the scripture which states this. After supporting this claim you proceeded to legitimize it by offering an argument comparing killing less valuable lifeforms as validation for hierarchy of punishment. This I assume was your attempt at using logic to validate revelation ? My replies have been of similar ilk yet not compatible with revelation it seems. The claim that greater life forms receive greater respect is true but the analogy doesn't work when you extrapolate it to include an infinite God. How do you make the step from temporal punishment of a mosquito to infinite punishment of a man?

It seems we have both attempted logical arguments but for some reason Omegaman you suggest mine is invalid because yours is revelation. I disagree, of course.

I can understand that since the difference between the unbeliever and the believer is that grace we receive through faith, that one could conclude then that it is that difference, that sends one to Hell and the other to safety. I think though, that this is not quite accurate. The difference is subtle, but not insignificant. The sin sends us to Hell, both the believer and the unbeliever deserve as much, and would get it, apart from that faith. The difference, that sin purchases us Hell (the wages of sin is death), but God bails us out, rescues us from out just deserts. Sin condemns, Jesus saves.

We deserve Hell for our sins, but God gives us eternal life.

I hope I made the distinction clear, I do not feel like I did, To alter your statement to equal what I am trying to say:

instead of "it isn't the sin that sends the person to the Lake of Fire, but the position of belief/enmity"

I believe it woulds be correct if modified to read:

"it is the sin that sends a person to the Lake of Fire, but grace through belief, rescues one"

Ok I see your position more clearly now, I think.

There still remains the problem, though that the believer still sins. If the argument is that the sin sends the person to hell then why does this cease to be the case after salvation? We know sin no longer sends a person to hell after salvation unless you suggest it does as some on this site claim. If sin doesn't send the believer to hell then logically neither does it send the non believer to hell unless we are somehow immune.

Repent and believe is the cry for eternal life; not simply repent.

The reason that the believer does not join the unbeliever in the "heated dwelling", is not dependent on repentance or

failure to repent. The sin is done, and it cannot be undone. It can however, be forgiven. It is a divine act of grace, we did nothing and cannot do anything to undo our sin, but God grants us forgiveness, imparts Jesus innocence to us, as a free gift to believers.

You have addressed past sins here but what do you say for sins a believer commits after repentance and belief? I agree the believer does not join the unbeliever in the Lake of Fire because of God's grace and this surely means the sin isn't the instrument that sends people to hell but the absence of God's grace is. This is quite simple and I'm not sure how you claim it is wrongly framed.

Before the mind goes off and concludes that we earned salvation by believing that is it granted in response to our faith, let me state that that is not an accurate picture of grace. First off, we do not believe of our own doing, faith it self, is a gift of God, God works in us, to have faith, it is His work, not ours, and He did it in eternity, before we even were born to commit a sin. It is the gift of God, lest any man should boast.

Ok this seems to delve into predestination or the absence of free will and I won't address this at this stage.

Not sure I understand what you are getting at here. Only God judges these matters, but repentance and unrepentance are not the things that qualify one for one destiny or the other. First off no one repents completely. Repentance does not undo a past sin anyway, so if you have sinned, and turn from your evil ways and never sin again, you are still damned, apart from the salvation the God gives to some. We do not need repentance to gain salvation, salvation is a

gift. When we are saved, God gives us a new nature, and that nature desires to serve and obey God, and repentance is the fruit of that new nature.

If God has renewed our hearts, repentance and good works are the result of that nature, and subsequent to the new birth, not the cause of it.

The repentance I speak of is that of turning from unbelief. Jesus said to repent and believe the Gospel and receive the gift of eternal life so I'm not sure why you claim repentance comes after salvation. I think you have the didgeridoo upside down.

You totally lost me there, in what way does that validate your position?

"I think that sort of indicates the Bible perspective of who qualifies as enemies of God - those who sin intentionally, and who have not received God's grace through faith."

It is those who have not received God's grace that are doomed not those who sin because believers sin also as we know. Again this concept of intentional sin is here. Maybe I don't understand you do you claim a believer cannot intentionally sin?

( A note: I have used God's grace here as a natural progression of moving from unbelief to belief or from enmity to sonship. You however suggest the grace is what caused belief ( ? ) in the first place and this may put us at an impasse. I believe in free will. )

[Guest]

You earlier supported the claim that a sin against an infinite God brought an infinite sentence. Correct me if I have this wrong but I think it is correct. Do you suggest this is revelation ? If so please provide for me the scripture which states this. After supporting this claim you proceeded to legitimize it by offering an argument comparing killing less valuable lifeforms as validation for hierarchy of punishment. This I assume was your attempt at using logic to validate revelation ?

I did say as much, yes. First, the OPs assertion was that a finite crime does not deserve an infinet sentence, or words to that effect. When one sets up and argument such as that, one has set up a false, or at least an unproven premise, he did not establish that the crime was finite, he asserted it. I think the thinking was perhaps along the lines of a crime committed in a limited amount of time, requires only a limited amout of punsishment. However, even that has not been established.

Offering the idea that the crime was committed against an infinite being, was an alternative way to see feature of the crime that might up the ante. It also is not established as fact, but it is as credible an assertion as asserting the crime was finite. Was this logic, or revelation? Clearly it was logic. But what was your question?

"A sin against an infinite God requires an infinite sentence. How does this work logically ?" You asked for a logical answer, now you want something else, lol.

My replies have been of similar ilk yet not compatible with revelation it seems. The claim that greater life forms receive greater respect is true but the analogy doesn't work when you extrapolate it to include an infinite God.

Why not? Why do you think that is true, or self evident and not just an opinion?

How do you make the step from temporal punishment of a mosquito to infinite punishment of a man?

Is that what you meant to ask, is that what you thought I said? if so, you misunderstood. The mosquito was not being punished, the mosquito was the victim. I was saying that the sentence for abusing a mosquito shoud not be as severe as the sentence for abusing a man, because the mosquito is of lower 'value'. Not that this proves anything, but I would say that it is virtually the uniform opinion of mankind, that mosquitos are relativley low on the scale, and we make the sentence relative to the victim. If we did this with money instead of living things, we might give a person a thirty day jail sentence for stealing $100, maybe a year for $1000, and maybe 10 years for stealing $100,000. So, how much time would a person get, for stealing all the money of the past, preasen, and future of all cultures? Certainly he does not have that much time.

Transfering this idea back to the value of beings instead of cash, the mosquites is the infration, a dog the misdemeaner, the human the felony, and God is of such value (infinite) that only and infinite sentence fits the crime, you like logic, but do not like it if the outcome leads you to a different conclusion than you desire. I don't know, but that logic seems sound to me. If it is not to you, then that proves that logic is not the way to discover the kind of true we are investigating. It is not that logic is useless, but it can be ineffective, and it cal also be used to demonstrate the logical fallacy of other logical arguments. If logic is the mat we compare method of choice, then logic is what we compare logic with.

It seems we have both attempted logical arguments but for some reason Omegaman you suggest mine is invalid because yours is revelation. I disagree, of course.

I disagree too! My logic is not revelation. Revelation reveals the same conclusion that my logic suggests. I cannot prove through logic, that the reason Hell is for eternity, is becuase God is of great worth. It is not or should not be important to understand why Hell is eternal, it either is or it is not, and the only way to know that is from revelation. The bible refers to it with words like "eternal", and "forever and forever". Now think about that. Forever, means to continue for all time. This is not forever, but forever AND forever. Longer that all time - therfore another way to say eternal, if the first case was not clear.

I asked you in another post to provide scripture that indicates a temporal punishment, You did not do so, is there some reason why you could not accomodate that request?

There still remains the problem, though that the believer still sins. If the argument is that the sin sends the person to hell then why does this cease to be the case after salvation?

No, no problem remains, this was already addressed The only problem I see is the problem that is at the root of many problems. In the above you ask "why" . Let me try that:

Why does why matter. Why do you think it is at all relevant? Why, do Christians, who operate by faith, need to understand why, instead of just taking God at His word? Does it have to satisfy your logic and your curiousity before it is true, or does God really have to prove Himself not to be a liar? If God was a lair, couldn't He easily deceive you and confound your logic easily anyway. Is your logic, a better, more trustworthy source of truth that God's pronouncements? Just asking.

Never-the-less, I will address the question anyway, though I cannot answer why. There is no question I hate more that the question why, when the answer to it is both unimportant, and unknowable. You asked "If the argument is that the sin sends the person to hell then why does this cease to be the case after salvation?"

Why, I cannot say but do you just used a word - salvation - do you even understand what we mean by the term? Salvation means that we are saved from the eternal penalty of all of our sins, past, present and future. Are you thinking then that God provision, the sacrifice of His own priceless Son, was not enough to cover our debts? Do you really have such a low sense of worth of that act? Those sins were paid for, the debt is settled, paid in advance. Consider this, it is true that we became aware of our salvation at a point in time, but the payment for our sins, was paid before we were even born. The were not paid for when we believed, that is when we received the voucher, but the payment was already on deposit. Do you think that we should have Jesus die all over again, every time one of us sins? I can hardly beleive you even asked the question.

We know sin no longer sends a person to hell after salvation unless you suggest it does as some on this site claim.

The idea that sin can send a saved person to hell, is heresy. Saved persons, by definition do not go to Hell. It is self contradictory, and God is a liar because he says He gives eternal life. If it can be taken away, then He never really gave it to us, and eternal loses it's meaning if the gift is just a loan.

If sin doesn't send the believer to hell then logically neither does it send the non believer to hell unless we are somehow immune.

What, again with the logic? I am beginning to think you do not know what that word means. It actually has a meaning, and stating that something is logical does not make it so, it is more that a word that you just insert before stating an idea. To say that if sin does not send a beleiver to hell, then logically it does not send an unbeleiver to hell either, how do I say this . . . there is nothing remotely logical about your statement, it is a tolal non sequitur. Seriously, and I really so not mean to be mean, but you shoud consider restricting you use of the word logic. I think you use the word logic ad a substitute for "it seems to me".

To the second part of your statement "unless we are somehow immune" I will address, Functionally - effectively, we are immune, but I think that is a poor way of saying it of thinking about it. Our sins have real consequences, real effects. Jesus paid for them with real suffering after living sinlessly all His life, yet he was tempted, and He suffered for the first time, a separation from the Father, as He (Jesus) bore our sins and even became sin for us. We are "immune", becuase we don't get eternally punished, but rather that immunity, what we really get is forgivness, but that forgivess was not God simply saying "I forgive you" it was God saying I love you, I want you to be with me, and I will buy your forgivness by paying for it myself.

I have a wife, and if the situation arose, were a gunman was about to squeeze the trigger on a gun pointed at her, and all I could do was to step in front of her and take the bullet intened for her, I would like to think I would. Jesus took the bullet for every beleiver, not only that but for every sin of every beleiver. So, are we immune? Only to the extent that my wife was immune in the above scenario, she did not get the consequnce of that bullet, but somebody else did. Our debt is paid, our sin forgiven, but Jesus paid it all.

Repent and believe is the cry for eternal life; not simply repent.

Not quite sure what you are saying there so I am passing on commenting

You have addressed past sins here but what do you say for sins a believer commits after repentance and belief?

Not really, when I say our sins are forgiven, I have not at all intended to imply that these sins are past only, Each sin from when we draw out first breath until we breathe our last, was forgiven 2000 years ago, and in God's plan from eternity. The Bible nowhere says that forgivness is limited to the past, as I said, Jesus paid ahead, at that point all of our sins we yet future.

I agree the believer does not join the unbeliever in the Lake of Fire because of God's grace and this surely means the sin isn't the instrument that sends people to hell but the absence of God's grace is. This is quite simple and I'm not sure how you claim it is wrongly framed.

Other than that pesky logic again, where do you this stuff. The wages of sin is death, right? Did I miss the verse that says the wages of absence of grace is death? Sin produces death, we earned it. If what you are saying is true, then if a person managed to live truely sinless, that they would still go to Hell? Grace is there as the antidote to sin, you have put the cart before the horse I am afraid. How can one read the bible, and not get that people are there becuause they sinned, and that people who are saved are in that state because God rescued them from sin. This is so fundamental, so basic, that it is not even Christianity 101, it is assumed to be known of people in that class. If you haven't even gotten that far Ninhao, I am really, very very worried for you.

Ok this seems to delve into predestination or the absence of free will and I won't address this at this stage.

I agree, let's not go there, no need to waste time on the biblical and frankly undeniable doctrine of predestination, a doctrine I do not like, but have come to embrace ever since I have really come to grips with God's sovereignty. I don't think the topic can be avoided really.

The repentance I speak of is that of turning from unbelief. Jesus said to repent and believe the Gospel and receive the gift of eternal life so I'm not sure why you claim repentance comes after salvation. I think you have the didgeridoo upside down.

No, I think the didgeridoo is just fine. I like that by repentance, you mean turning form unbelief.

Repentance of that sort is impotant mandatory in fact, I agree. It is a change of heart and it pleases God, I doubt you would disagree need proof of that. But, how does this happen, how do we repent, do we just do it in our fallen nature sudenly our wicked hearts want to serve God? I dont think so.

Now, if you agreed that it pleases God (that was a little trap I set up) let me ask, can a man please God?

In Hebrews 11 we learn that without faith, it is impossible to please God

So, if repentance pleases God, we need faith first, which totally makes sense, how can we turn to a God we do not beleive in?

So faith first then repentance. Did you know, that nor only is faith a work of God, not our doing, but that He grants repentance?

The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

What do we already know about grace?

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Works are things we do, this salvation does not come by any sort of works, but soley by Gods doing, we have nothing to do with it not one thing at all. Even the faith through which we receive his grace, is His doing.

We were blind and deaf, God gave us eyes to see, and ears to hear his message, and changed our hearts to receieve it.

From these verses, we see that our heart is changed, then He grants us repentance, and in repentance we gain the knowledge of the truth.

All of that were for the elect, chosen before the world, apart for any actions of our own. It may seem to us that we did something, but we really didn't, it was all God, and only possible becuase he did all of us for us, for His own reasons and glory. He enabled us to beleive the gospel, and by that, save us from out sins, paying the price for them. There is not the tiniest thing there, we can boast about. If there was, then it is not grace. As Rom 11:6 says: But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. As wonderful as this news is, we want to reject it. We think it unfair, or we want to deserved it, we want do to something to procure our own salvation. If we can, then we convert Christianity to be like all other religions, that center on what man does, instead of what God did. Why do we want to do this? My best guess is pride.

It is those who have not received God's grace that are doomed not those who sin because believers sin also as we know. Again this concept of intentional sin is here. Maybe I don't understand you do you claim a believer cannot intentionally sin?

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We all have, do and will sin. Sinners, can be broken down to two camps, those who are still dead in their sins, and those who God has rescued from there sins, that He as given eternal life to, by His grace. Certainly beleivers intensionally, sin, I would off that perhaps in a way, more greivously that unbeleivers, because we better understand the nature and effects of sin, are more aware of sin, we have conviction of sin,and we have the Holy Spirit to empower us to resist. We are aware that we are indwelt by God, and that what we do in our bodies, we drag Jesus there as well. We have all of these things, that make sin even more grievous, at least that is how I see it.

Hopefully, as we grow in Him, we get stronger and more self controlled, and sin, though present, is no longer a habit that we need to succumb to.

( A note: I have used God's grace here as a natural progression of moving from unbelief to belief or from enmity to sonship. You however suggest the grace is what caused belief ( ? ) in the first place and this may put us at an impasse. I believe in free will. )

I beleive I have free will too, I prove it everytime I sin. Do you think that you free will is powerless to resist God? I know that you do not, So, any free will that you have is not your power, but what God allows you to do. You are free in the same way that a slave is free, you are free within the limitations your master allows and no more. What can you do, that God does not allow you to do? I know you will say "nothing".

Let's look at an example of free will. God says: "Jonah, I want you to go to Ninevah. Jonah says: "No thanks, I am going to go to Tashish, on vacation." You know the story, Jonah finds himself in a biological submarine bound for Ninevah anyway. On his own steam, Johah walks into town.

God will never make you do anything against your will, but He can certainly make you willing to go. So, what kind of free will is that, you will do what God wants, no matter how much free will you think you have, you do not have enough smarts or power, do deny His will now, do you?

You would probably agree, that God has forknowledge. You probably beleive that He knew ahead of time, who He was going to save. If God had written down in the Bible Ninhao will be saved, we would call it a prophecy. God's prophecies alwasy come to pass. Are you saying then that if God profesied that Ninhao was going to be saved, that Ninhao would be able to say (as Jonah did): No thanks God, I have free will, I am going to do it my way. Seriously? Not going to happen, you have free will yes, to do whatever God allows you do, otherwise, you will do it His way.

It has been fun Ninhao, but it takes time, and I don't have much else to say that won't just lead us in circles, Not only that, but we have derailed the topic I think, but I think also, that there is some good stuff for others to ponder. You can have the last word if you like.

[Guest ninhao]

I did say as much, yes. First, the OPs assertion was that a finite crime does not deserve an infinet sentence, or words to that effect. When one sets up and argument such as that, one has set up a false, or at least an unproven premise, he did not establish that the crime was finite, he asserted it. I think the thinking was perhaps along the lines of a crime committed in a limited amount of time, requires only a limited amout of punsishment. However, even that has not been established.

Offering the idea that the crime was committed against an infinite being, was an alternative way to see feature of the crime that might up the ante. It also is not established as fact, but it is as credible an assertion as asserting the crime was finite. Was this logic, or revelation? Clearly it was logic. But what was your question?

"A sin against an infinite God requires an infinite sentence. How does this work logically ?" You asked for a logical answer, now you want something else, lol.

Aha a filerbuster

I have an hour or so to spare at the moment before I travel so I will attempt to answer your questions and also give answer to your assertions. I prefer brief posts but it seems we have gotten large so be it.

Here is what the OP offered in relation to our discussion.

(4) To be just, the punishment must fit the crime

(5) Eternal punishment is never a just punishment for a finite crime

(6) Even if original sin, the sins of all humanity was taking into consideration, based on (2) we would still require a finite punishment

I assumed from (5) we are speaking of the type and number of crimes a person has committed in their life. Are you addressing the farther reaching implications of these crimes and not the face value of them ? For instance; in the OT we have examples of punishment set for particular crimes and they are scaled according to severity by God.

Exodus 21:23-25

But if there is serious injury, you are to take life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise. (NIV)

Exodus 21 has many different crimes and different punishments which God Himself ordered. This might be worth keeping in mind for later in this post.

As per me asking for a logical answer this is true I have. You provided an answer which imo is not logical but then shift camp claiming it is backed by revelation. I haven't seen this supported as yet except maybe by " Wages of sin is death" ( ?) but this can't be applied simply because death does not equal eternal punishment. Maybe you assert it does I'm not sure.

But I am willing to investigate any scripture that you suggest supports " sin against an infinte God requires infite punishment" . I will until then assess your claim logically and apart from claimed revelation.

Why not? Why do you think that is true, or self evident and not just an opinion?

Firstly you can look above at the Exodus 21 scriptures which show God indeed sets varying degrees of punishment according to the type of crime/sin. I will provide some more so that we can conclude, at least here and now, that God does set varying punishments.

Luke 12:46-48

New International Version (NIV)

⁴⁶ The master of that servant will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour he is not aware of. He will cut him to pieces and assign him a place with the unbelievers.

⁴⁷ “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants will be beaten with many blows.⁴⁸ But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.

Mark 12:38-40

As he taught, Jesus said, "Watch out for the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and be greeted with respect in the marketplaces, and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. These men will be punished most severely." (NIV)

Proverbs 24:12

New International Version (NIV)

¹² If you say, “But we knew nothing about this,”

does not he who weighs the heart perceive it?

Does not he who guards your life know it?

Will he not repay everyone according to what they have done?

We can see my premise is supported by scripture.

[Guest ninhao]

Is that what you meant to ask, is that what you thought I said? if so, you misunderstood. The mosquito was not being punished, the mosquito was the victim. I was saying that the sentence for abusing a mosquito shoud not be as severe as the sentence for abusing a man, because the mosquito is of lower 'value'. Not that this proves anything, but I would say that it is virtually the uniform opinion of mankind, that mosquitos are relativley low on the scale, and we make the sentence relative to the victim. If we did this with money instead of living things, we might give a person a thirty day jail sentence for stealing $100, maybe a year for $1000, and maybe 10 years for stealing $100,000. So, how much time would a person get, for stealing all the money of the past, preasen, and future of all cultures? Certainly he does not have that much time.

Transfering this idea back to the value of beings instead of cash, the mosquites is the infration, a dog the misdemeaner, the human the felony, and God is of such value (infinite) that only and infinite sentence fits the crime, you like logic, but do not like it if the outcome leads you to a different conclusion than you desire. I don't know, but that logic seems sound to me. If it is not to you, then that proves that logic is not the way to discover the kind of true we are investigating. It is not that logic is useless, but it can be ineffective, and it cal also be used to demonstrate the logical fallacy of other logical arguments. If logic is the mat we compare method of choice, then logic is what we compare logic with.

I worded the question wrongly in a hurry.

I still don't collect your reasoning that the person who a crime is committed against is the sole, or even major, decider of the length of sentence. Once again I think you are delving into irrelevant territory by including non humans. The graduation of beings you have lkisted is all good and fine if we are considering the discrepancy of value of the insect/animal/human/ god but this isn't what we are talking about. Our discussion is about the severity of punishment resulting from sin. Somehow you have formulated a very strange, albeit christianese, philosophy that the status of the victim decides the degree of punishment. Don't you see the imbalance this brings?

I don't see this as a logical argument but more of a dogmatic religious one.

I disagree too! My logic is not revelation. Revelation reveals the same conclusion that my logic suggests. I cannot prove through logic, that the reason Hell is for eternity, is becuase God is of great worth. It is not or should not be important to understand why Hell is eternal, it either is or it is not, and the only way to know that is from revelation. The bible refers to it with words like "eternal", and "forever and forever". Now think about that. Forever, means to continue for all time. This is not forever, but forever AND forever. Longer that all time - therfore another way to say eternal, if the first case was not clear.

I asked you in another post to provide scripture that indicates a temporal punishment, You did not do so, is there some reason why you could not accomodate that request?

I apologize for not providing the scriptures to support my case earlier but I have done so, in part, above for your consideration. It is very clear God differentiates between sins and has provided finite punishments for them. My argument, at this stage, is that because God differentiates between sins it isn't logical that a person who commits lesser sins will receive equal punishment to one who commits greater. There is more to come with regard to why it is absence of God's grace which dooms people and not their sin but I will regather my thoughts and get back to you.

I have no solid position about the eternity of hell at this stage but as you will be aware there are many arguments which revolve around "eternal" and "forever and forever" which is another topic I won't address now. Actually I have finished assessing the subject of eternal hell many years ago and am waiting on new and more relevant data to reassess it.

There still remains the problem, though that the believer still sins. If the argument is that the sin sends the person to hell then why does this cease to be the case after salvation?

No, no problem remains, this was already addressed The only problem I see is the problem that is at the root of many problems. In the above you ask "why" . Let me try that:

Why does why matter. Why do you think it is at all relevant? Why, do Christians, who operate by faith, need to understand why, instead of just taking God at His word? Does it have to satisfy your logic and your curiousity before it is true, or does God really have to prove Himself not to be a liar? If God was a lair, couldn't He easily deceive you and confound your logic easily anyway. Is your logic, a better, more trustworthy source of truth that God's pronouncements? Just asking.

Never-the-less, I will address the question anyway, though I cannot answer why. There is no question I hate more that the question why, when the answer to it is both unimportant, and unknowable. You asked "If the argument is that the sin sends the person to hell then why does this cease to be the case after salvation?"

Why, I cannot say but do you just used a word - salvation - do you even understand what we mean by the term? Salvation means that we are saved from the eternal penalty of all of our sins, past, present and future. Are you thinking then that God provision, the sacrifice of His own priceless Son, was not enough to cover our debts? Do you really have such a low sense of worth of that act? Those sins were paid for, the debt is settled, paid in advance. Consider this, it is true that we became aware of our salvation at a point in time, but the payment for our sins, was paid before we were even born. The were not paid for when we believed, that is when we received the voucher, but the payment was already on deposit. Do you think that we should have Jesus die all over again, every time one of us sins? I can hardly beleive you even asked the question.

I think you are becoming indignant over a line of question and I'm not sure why, really. But thanks for giving a reply but never feel obliged to answer me if it troubles you.

You have set a nice man of straw questioning if I even understand salvation. I assume this is because you can't fathom any reasoning aside from the dogmatic religious view. I will ease your mind though and agree in principle with what you have said above. You have dodged the question regarding the sins of believers though. If a believer "intentionally " sins what is the consequence? If the consequence isn't infinite punishment it is because of God's grace which comes upon the believer through their faith don't you agree?

This then logically shows that it is the grace which keeps the person from hell and not the absence of sin. Conversely, for the non believer, it is the opposite. Without the grace of God which comes after repentance and belief, they are doomed. It is quite obvious it isn't the sin which dooms them but the absence of God's grace. A person can turn from unsaved to saved in the blink of an eye ( imo) and this is not because they have repented of every individual sin but because they have accepted the Gospel and believe. The repentance is from a life of sin or better described as enmity with god imo.

[Guest ninhao]

The idea that sin can send a saved person to hell, is heresy. Saved persons, by definition do not go to Hell. It is self contradictory, and God is a liar because he says He gives eternal life. If it can be taken away, then He never really gave it to us, and eternal loses it's meaning if the gift is just a loan.

I agree but have seen on this site some people claim every time a believer sins they become unsaved unless they repent. I wasn't sure if this was one of your positions.

What, again with the logic? I am beginning to think you do not know what that word means. It actually has a meaning, and stating that something is logical does not make it so, it is more that a word that you just insert before stating an idea. To say that if sin does not send a beleiver to hell, then logically it does not send an unbeleiver to hell either, how do I say this . . . there is nothing remotely logical about your statement, it is a tolal non sequitur. Seriously, and I really so not mean to be mean, but you shoud consider restricting you use of the word logic. I think you use the word logic ad a substitute for "it seems to me".

I seriously feel we have a similar view of eachothers logical process. Never mind I am willing to continue our discussions even though you have a logical blockage. Maybe it is simply because of the prementioned religious dogma.

To the second part of your statement "unless we are somehow immune" I will address, Functionally - effectively, we are immune, but I think that is a poor way of saying it of thinking about it. Our sins have real consequences, real effects. Jesus paid for them with real suffering after living sinlessly all His life, yet he was tempted, and He suffered for the first time, a separation from the Father, as He (Jesus) bore our sins and even became sin for us. We are "immune", becuase we don't get eternally punished, but rather that immunity, what we really get is forgivness, but that forgivess was not God simply saying "I forgive you" it was God saying I love you, I want you to be with me, and I will buy your forgivness by paying for it myself.

I have a wife, and if the situation arose, were a gunman was about to squeeze the trigger on a gun pointed at her, and all I could do was to step in front of her and take the bullet intened for her, I would like to think I would. Jesus took the bullet for every beleiver, not only that but for every sin of every beleiver. So, are we immune? Only to the extent that my wife was immune in the above scenario, she did not get the consequnce of that bullet, but somebody else did. Our debt is paid, our sin forgiven, but Jesus paid it all.

I mentioned Christian immunity from the consequence of sin as objection to the consequences of "intentional" sin you mentioned earlier. The argument that "intentional" sin brought hell isn't valid unless you suggest a Christian cannot commit "intentional" sin. We can however see that it isn't the sin that brings hell but the salvic position of the person. This is extemely logical but at this point I don't expect you to agree

Other than that pesky logic again, where do you this stuff. The wages of sin is death, right? Did I miss the verse that says the wages of absence of grace is death? Sin produces death, we earned it. If what you are saying is true, then if a person managed to live truely sinless, that they would still go to Hell? Grace is there as the antidote to sin, you have put the cart before the horse I am afraid. How can one read the bible, and not get that people are there becuause they sinned, and that people who are saved are in that state because God rescued them from sin. This is so fundamental, so basic, that it is not even Christianity 101, it is assumed to be known of people in that class. If you haven't even gotten that far Ninhao, I am really, very very worried for you.

I am now seeing this quite a dilemma for you and won't push much harder. If the wages of sin is death as we both agree and yet you want to apply the scripture to infinite punishment. surely you see the logical disconnect there?

I have much more to say about your aove paragraph but will wait upon the tone of your reply. Ok I will now comment Omegaman. Reading your whole post I perceive you are not worried for me. It really appears you are worried I don't agree with you which is different. Maybe prideful.

I agree, let's not go there, no need to waste time on the biblical and frankly undeniable doctrine of predestination, a doctrine I do not like, but have come to embrace ever since I have really come to grips with God's sovereignty. I don't think the topic can be avoided really.

At this stage we can't get past a very simple logical position concerning the wages of sin and why punishment may be infinite so I'm afraid I wouldn't be giving your predestination position ( what ever it may be ) much credibilty at this point.

No, I think the didgeridoo is just fine. I like that by repentance, you mean turning form unbelief.

Repentance of that sort is impotant mandatory in fact, I agree. It is a change of heart and it pleases God, I doubt you would disagree need proof of that. But, how does this happen, how do we repent, do we just do it in our fallen nature sudenly our wicked hearts want to serve God? I dont think so.

Now, if you agreed that it pleases God (that was a little trap I set up) let me ask, can a man please God?

In Hebrews 11 we learn that without faith, it is impossible to please God

So, if repentance pleases God, we need faith first, which totally makes sense, how can we turn to a God we do not beleive in?

So faith first then repentance. Did you know, that nor only is faith a work of God, not our doing, but that He grants repentance?

Are you taking something I posted and claiming it was a trap ? I can only post my position and if you decide it agrees with you it is now your doing

I will persevere though.

I would prefer to stick with scripture when it comes to what God says.

Hebrews 11:6

New International Version (NIV)

⁶ And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Why do you suggest this faith must come before repentance. As far as I can tell repentance ( a channge of heart ) would be the catalyst which brings faith. when a person first believes it aisn't always an explosion of instant faith. Often a person will feel a tug and investigate this with research and questioning about God. They feel repentance and in time develop faith through getting to know God from the actions of the Holy spirit, scriptures, and other believers. God may even work some miracles in their lives to fursther reveal himself and this all leads to greater faith. Initially though many people have little faith but maybe your experience is different.

The Lord’s bond-servant must not be quarrelsome, but be kind to all, able to teach, patient when wronged, 25with gentleness correcting those who are in opposition, if perhaps God may grant them repentance leading to the knowledge of the truth, 26and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, having been held captive by him to do his will.

This scripture pertains to God forcing repentance upon a person? I don't have time to study it right now but I will get back to you but at first glance the word "grant" stands out.. If you are suggesting God initiates repentance in every person I don't accept that at this stage. Maybe you mean the Holy spirit convicts people leading them to repentance this sounds more plauible.

What do we already know about grace?

8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; 9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Works are things we do, this salvation does not come by any sort of works, but soley by Gods doing, we have nothing to do with it not one thing at all. Even the faith through which we receive his grace, is His doing.

We were blind and deaf, God gave us eyes to see, and ears to hear his message, and changed our hearts to receieve it.

From these verses, we see that our heart is changed, then He grants us repentance, and in repentance we gain the knowledge of the truth.

All of that were for the elect, chosen before the world, apart for any actions of our own. It may seem to us that we did something, but we really didn't, it was all God, and only possible becuase he did all of us for us, for His own reasons and glory. He enabled us to beleive the gospel, and by that, save us from out sins, paying the price for them. There is not the tiniest thing there, we can boast about. If there was, then it is not grace. As Rom 11:6 says: But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace. As wonderful as this news is, we want to reject it. We think it unfair, or we want to deserved it, we want do to something to procure our own salvation. If we can, then we convert Christianity to be like all other religions, that center on what man does, instead of what God did. Why do we want to do this? My best guess is pride.

Again you are wandering into preacher mode and I'm not sure why. Are you suggesting we have no part to play in believing the Gospel ?

All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. We all have, do and will sin. Sinners, can be broken down to two camps, those who are still dead in their sins, and those who God has rescued from there sins, that He as given eternal life to, by His grace. Certainly beleivers intensionally, sin, I would off that perhaps in a way, more greivously that unbeleivers, because we better understand the nature and effects of sin, are more aware of sin, we have conviction of sin,and we have the Holy Spirit to empower us to resist. We are aware that we are indwelt by God, and that what we do in our bodies, we drag Jesus there as well. We have all of these things, that make sin even more grievous, at least that is how I see it.

Hopefully, as we grow in Him, we get stronger and more self controlled, and sin, though present, is no longer a habit that we need to succumb to.

Here lies the fault of your claim that it is sin which sends people to hell. Obviously it is the salvic positional status of the person which does this.

I beleive I have free will too, I prove it everytime I sin. Do you think that you free will is powerless to resist God? I know that you do not, So, any free will that you have is not your power, but what God allows you to do. You are free in the same way that a slave is free, you are free within the limitations your master allows and no more. What can you do, that God does not allow you to do? I know you will say "nothing".

Let's look at an example of free will. God says: "Jonah, I want you to go to Ninevah. Jonah says: "No thanks, I am going to go to Tashish, on vacation." You know the story, Jonah finds himself in a biological submarine bound for Ninevah anyway. On his own steam, Johah walks into town.

God will never make you do anything against your will, but He can certainly make you willing to go. So, what kind of free will is that, you will do what God wants, no matter how much free will you think you have, you do not have enough smarts or power, do deny His will now, do you?

You would probably agree, that God has forknowledge. You probably beleive that He knew ahead of time, who He was going to save. If God had written down in the Bible Ninhao will be saved, we would call it a prophecy. God's prophecies alwasy come to pass. Are you saying then that if God profesied that Ninhao was going to be saved, that Ninhao would be able to say (as Jonah did): No thanks God, I have free will, I am going to do it my way. Seriously? Not going to happen, you have free will yes, to do whatever God allows you do, otherwise, you will do it His way.

It has been fun Ninhao, but it takes time, and I don't have much else to say that won't just lead us in circles, Not only that, but we have derailed the topic I think, but I think also, that there is some good stuff for others to ponder. You can have the last word if you like.

I have really attempted to stay focused on your post Omegaman but in the end I've found you have mostly attempted to give me your holistic predestinational salvation/hell beliefs in sermon form.

I won't address anything that doesn't directly relate to " sin against an infinte God requires an infinite punishment." but you may suggest it is all relevant, of course.

As far as the last word goes yes I will take it !!!

Thank you Omegaman for your input I will consider your words more carefully later my fingers hurt

[Guest]

.... wouldn't Christ's just and fair bearing of our sins require an eternal punishment....

There Is

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

A Difference

Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them. And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made. Genesis 2:1-3

Between Jesus Christ

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: 1 Peter 2:21-22

And You And

Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. 1 Peter 2:23-24

Me

For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls. 1 Peter 2:25

You See

~

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

And Be Blessed Beloved

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20

Love, Joe

[ayin jade]

Here lies the fault of your claim that it is sin which sends people to hell. Obviously it is the salvic positional status of the person which does this.

Actually it is sin that condemns. Mankind is condemned by sin. It is our salvic positional status that saves us.

Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

[OneLight]

The whole discussion sound like someone is trying to debate purgatory without saying it.

[Jayyycuuup]

ninhao

There still remains the problem, though that the believer still sins. If the argument is that the sin sends the person to hell then why does this cease to be the case after salvation? We know sin no longer sends a person to hell after salvation unless you suggest it does as some on this site claim. If sin doesn't send the believer to hell then logically neither does it send the non believer to hell unless we are somehow immune.

This is in fact, problem-less. . . . We are saved by grace (Ephesians 2:8) and where God's grace abounds we have "coverage" (Ephesians 4:7) not to practice lawlessness (1 John 3:4) but to do our "best" not to sin- but if we do sin, we are forgiven. (Proverbs 28:13) It is unrepentant sin that sends us to hell (1 John 1:7-9) Christ abolishes that enslavement when He becomes our accepted Lord and Savior.

Romans 8:1

"So now there is no condemnation for those who belong to Christ Jesus"

There is no condemnation for those who are in CHRIST- for He set us apart from sin and set the captives (us) free! The placement of putting believers and unbelievers in the same "category" is where you will get mixed up. We are saved by Grace- an unbeliever is not. Gods grace sets us apart from our sin and where His grace abounds it overcomes the sin. Ephesians 1:5-12, and 2:1-10 depicts this God given grace.

[Elhanan]

Scripture interprets Scripture. It is a given that unbelievers who refuse to repent are not saved and end up in the hell. As ninhao points out though - Why are believers who refuse to repent of sins after salvation immune from the same punishment incurred by unbelievers? Jacob volunteers that grace is the answer as those who are in Christ are no longer subject to God's condemnation according to Rom 8:1. The problem in citing Rom 8:1 as a proof text however is that some Bible translations (KJV, NKJV, etc.) include the clause "who do not walk according to the flesh, but according to the Spirit." Therefore not being condemned is contingent upon the precondition that one is walking in the spirit. Conversely, believers who continue to walk in the flesh are not immune from God's condemnation. The apparent discrepancy between translations in verse 1 can be reconciled in verse 4 as all translations read similarly: ^"in order that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not according to the flesh but according to the Spirit. Paul repeats the same warning to the brethren in Rome: "For if you live according to the flesh you will die, but if by the Spirit you put to death the deeds of the body, you will live" (Rom 8:13). Therefore IMHO, no logical discrepancy as all habitually unrepentant sin results in spiritual death.

Edited April 17, 2013 by Elhanan