Deserving Eternal Torture/Torment

[book_wirm]

3. If a father is displeased with his child because the child does not live up to his standards and the father, in wrath and anger, tortures this child for a long period of time, then we call him an abuser. We say he doesn't love his child. If God does this with us, it is difficult for many to see the love in it--"love" according to any of its meanings. Now, that abusive father could say "I do love my child, but I also have standards--and my love for my child can't override those standards." This sounds like the holiness/justice argument.

Your question is flawed. God is not the Father of us all (relationally speaking). To all of His children He has given eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, but to those not of His family, He has promised the certainty of eternal punishment. This, then, is not a case of a father being overly harsh toward his son, but rather the Most Holy God dealing Justly toward a created thing.

In Christ,

Eric

Edited February 11, 2006 by book_wirm

[Matthitjah]

Grace to you,

Scroll,

To 2thePoint (or anyone else):

What does faith have over knowledge? What is it about faith that is salvific? What makes knowledge not salvific?

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. Thus no man may Boast.

Ro

[Arthur Durnan]

False cults such as Jehovah's False Witnesses, Christadelphians, Christian Science, SDAs, etc, deny everlasting punishment despite the biblical fact that the same Greek word which ascribes eternal existence to Almighty God & to heaven itself is also the very word to describe the duration of Gehenna. If Almighty God & heaven continue worlds without end, so must the Prison-house of the Universe. But truth to tell, "God is not willing that any should perish, but..."

http://arthurdurnan.freeyellow.com

[Copper Scroll]

To book wirm (or anyone):

If God's justice (eternal punishment for the moral failings of mortal ignorance and materiality--the very reason why what is flesh is bound to sin) is so different from our concept of justice (which would deem eternal punishment in this case excessive and cruel) why do we use the word "justice" in referring to both?

Allow me to gain some clarification before I give any answers. You speak of two "justices". One being God's and the other being man's. Is this a correct understanding? And I gather that you are asking how can we call both "justice" if they are different from one another? Is this a correct understanding of your question?

Let me elaborate on my original statement: We are "flesh"--material and finite. As such we are bound to sin. We occupy finite places in an expansive world. Our knowledge is limited. Our motivations are often in conflict. We are motivated by both by a conscience and sensual urges. We are not always conscious of the things we think, say, and do. We are bound to do the wrong thing at some point--either intentionally or unintentionally. We are bound to displease God at some points in our lives. But at the same time God made us. The argument could be made that God made us perfect and that we fell on our own. This has some validity to it, but even if we did start off perfect we were always bound to sin at some point. And God knew this when he created us. So God created what was bound to displease him, yet we are punished eternally for displeasing him. This is called (God's) justice.

If something comparable happened between human beings (as in the example I provide in post 21 as "3"), we would call it precisely unjust.

How can two completely different characterizations of justice share the same word? The real question is Why do we call God's justice "justice" at all? "Wrath" seems like a fitting word for eternal tortuous punishment, which seems even too severe for words like "vengeance" and "judgement".

If scripturally unsupported, I think this "soul sleep" notion I hear about (if I am hearing correctly--that it means the souls ceasing to exist) is compelling for believers in a loving and just God, because it makes sense that what is material and finite is bound to die--"deserves" death. The loving and just God comes to offer eternal life graciously. This makes more intuitive sense for many, even if some scriptures (that often admittedly are to be taken figuratively to some extent) contradict this notion.

Edited February 11, 2006 by Copper Scroll

[Copper Scroll]

I think the difficulty some people have with God exacting non-redemptive, long-term punishment is that when people exact non-redemptive, long-term punishment on others we call them cruel--and people don't want to call God cruel. Your points on this post are well-presented, but the question arises What makes God in this case not cruel?

I would only see it as cruel if:

1. The punishment was undeserved - in other words the punishment was not in proportion to the crime. Given the fact that all sin, any sin, is an affront to the character of a Holy God, eternal punishment seems fitting

It seems fitting that even the slightest misstep warrants eternal torture? How can "proportion" ever be applied to this issue when even one slight and unintentional misstep is treated the same way as an intentional career in destruction and mischief? In this situation, "proportion" seems inapplicable.

2. If the punisher was not qualified to dole out said punishment - Given the fact that God not only knows every deed, but also the intentions of the heart, God is emminently qualified to dole out such punishment

Agreed. If anyone is qualified to judge, it's God--because God knows everything. God is the only one qualified to judge. I am not equipped to judge God as a judge. I'm am just trying to find agreement among his attributes where I find conflict. I do appreciate your help in this.

Certain sections of scripture contain figurative language. Typically a figure is used (especially in apocalyptic like revelation) to paint a picture that is vivid in the minds of the reader. So, when John describes eternal punishment he uses figures like, "the smoke of their punishment" going into God's nostrils for eternity. The part that is figurative is the description of what eternal punishment will be like. The problem comes when folks want to extent the figurative language to include the all that is being taught in the passage. There is little to indicate that John did not mean that the punishment would be eternal. He was using figurative language to describe that punishment. A typical rule of hermeneutics is that language should be taken as figurative only when the context demands it, and that the figure should not be extended to all parts of the text.

And when figurative language is used, we don't call it a lie--because we know it points precisely in the direction of truth. It is used to convey truths that literal, formal language would fail to convey. At some points, words (as taken literally as a document of actual facts) will fail Truth (meaning absolute truth--WORD); words will fail the WORD. So the parables (for example) are not documents of actual events--they are not the truth in themselves--they indicate Truth; they transmit wisdom. They are used to move the audience to a new place (wisdom). They are fixed on a result. In view of this, perhaps the language used to describe hell was used only as a means to move the audience to a new place (heaven). Stating that hell will torture you for eternity if your sins are not cleaned would motivate the audience to have their sins washed away, even if by fear. Christianity was a young and small religion when those texts were written. Young and small children need deterrents from the wrong behavior. Eternal torture is the ultimate deterrent. (This point is related to the Infallible Bible thread.)

So, to me, the important question is not How do we distinguish the literal from the figurative? or Where is the line drawn? The important question is whether the distinction between the literal and the figurative matters at all. Whether it is taken literally or figuratively, the response is the same--the audience will seek salvation. Either literally or figuratively true, the text accomplishes his objective.

My dad loved me. He would have given his life for me. There were however situations where he would not and could not have intervened. Lets say I committed the crime of murder and was convicted. My dad would not have and could not have spared me from the sentence handed down from the court, even though he loved me. If my dad knew I had commited a murder, he would have turned me into the police, knowing what my punishment would be.

Would he turn you in if he knew that you would be tortured long term as punishment?

Babies are a difficult issue. They are not adressed specifically in scripture (regarding what happens to them if they die as infants). I trust God to do the right thing here, but cannot address them specifically since scripture itself does not single them out in this regard.

You imply that babies won't go to hell. When you say that you "trust God to do the right thing here", do you mean "the right thing" by our standards or God's? If the OT is inerrant, then God ordered babies to be slaughtered. This indicates that God (as characterized in those passages) would not have a problem sending baby-sinners to hell.

My view of people is that they won't stop changing after death. Those who have received a new nature as a result of accepting Jesus will continue to grow in their knowledge of Him. Those who do not have such a nature will continue to degrade, but with no restraint because the Holy Spirit will no longer be convicting them of sin.

In this life, if we are on the wrong path, we can always switch to the righteous path. Your view then is whatever path God judges us to be on at the time of our death is the path we will have to continue to walk for eternity. Is this correct?

[Copper Scroll]

God is not the Father of us all (relationally speaking). To all of His children He has given eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord, but to those not of His family, He has promised the certainty of eternal punishment.

Who is "not of His family"? Non-believers? Belief gets you into "His family"?

[Copper Scroll]

The other, more dangerous problem with not believing in eternal torment for the lost is that it gives them a false sense of security. If God will ultimately either save everyone or make the lost disappear or sleep for eternity, why worry about getting saved? If the lost sleep or annihilated then the atheists are still right, because they will have lived life by their own rules and then they are gone. And if the universalists are right then there is still no point to getting saved because God will never punish us.

Might not another reason for being saved simply be the idea that the Gospel is actually true and that one is only right in taking it for truth. You seem to imply above that the only reason to follow God is because God will reward us or because we don't want to be tortured for eternity. It implies that a person should believe what is true not because it's true--but because if you believe it you won't suffer for eternity. Shouldn't we follow God for better reasons than that?

The bottom line is that the Bible says "Preach the gospel". There's got to be a reason we must do this, and that reason is the reality of eternal torment.

So fear should motivate our faith--not Love or Truth? Fear is a higher principle than Love or Truth? So God is not just love, and God is not just the WORD--God is also Fear?

[RustyAngeL]

Lately, I've been taking a closer look at some of the tenets of our faith.

I'd like to examine the notion that we as sinners are deserving of eternal torture. What scriptures contain this idea? What is your interpretation of that scripture? Why do we deserve to be tortured for eternity?

Hell was not created for man but...for the devil and his angels as scripture says. However it does say that who so evers name was not found int the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire. Rev 20:15. I didn't write this God did. Sin has always had its consequences here and in eternity.

[Copper Scroll]

Soul sleep is actually the idea that when we die we 'sleep' until resurrected. It really isn't related at all to annihilation (destruction of the soul) of unbelievers. Proponents of soul sleep do not hold it to be permanent. But when the Bible speaks of someone 'sleeping' it cannot be clearly shown to mean that the soul itself sleeps (since there are scriptures which speak of people in heaven asking for vengenance, etc.) but that the physical body must return to dust until it is raised up.

I am familiar with this doctrine. I got it confused. Thanks for sorting this out.

A teacher gives a test. There is one question among all the rest that must be gotten right in order to pass the course. For those who get it right, the other questions determine the amount of reward. But for those who miss it, the other questions determine the degree of suffering. Would it be fair to change the rules after the tests are graded? If some students worked hard to make sure they knew the answer to the main question, why should those who didn't make the effort be allowed to pass anyway? Is that just? Is that fair to the ones that passed? Why should anyone try to study for the test if they know they'll be passed anyway?

This appears to be a decent analogy. The problem I have is that some students don't know or understand how this test is being graded. Now a good teacher does his/her best in letting the students know how they're being graded. You might say God does this in providing us with the Bible. Further, the question arises whether God does his best in letting us know what the rules are. If God is responsible for keeping the Bible whole and pure, why is there so much confusion within and without the Church?

Also, failing the teacher's test doesn't spell eternal torture. Failing God's test does.

[WISDOM]

Copper Scroll, Butero and 2 the Point:

I just finished "scrolling" through this thread (no pun intended), and must say I truly enjoyed reading all of your well thought out posts. You covered quite a bit of ground, providing some invaluable knowledge I hope and pray has help many others both in and not in (seekers) the Body of CHRIST. Christians especially need to understand the false teachings of "soul sleep" and "annihilation", and that there's no biblical substantiation for its support. Excellent job carrying this on Copper!

Again, it was a joy reading this thread.