"Punishing the creation eternally for being exactly as the creator intended it to be is justice and is a sign that the creator is good."
Logically, can the above statement be true? Perhaps something along the lines of this:
1. God is good and just
2. Whatever God does is good and just
3. God torments some of the creation eternally, so eternal torment must be good and just
4. Effectively, God defines the meaning of good and just
Logically I think it breaks down at step 3. Then step 4 leads to a "might is right" philosophy.
Effectively God appears to define a word to mean its intrinsic opposite. ie. justice means to be fair, to judge fairly, to give a just punishment. Therefore since God is always right, eternal torment must be justice. Even though
"intrinsically" eternal torment can only be unjust.
Is there anything intrinsic apart from God? ie. standards of good/evil, justice/injustice, etc.
Under UR beliefs, "might is right" definitions and "intrinsic" definitions are the same. No "intrinsic" defintions need to be redefined.
Under ET beliefs, "might is right" definitions alter "intrinsic" definitions to be the opposite. Effectively good is called evil and evil is called good.
Comments?
I don't know if there's any philosophy anywhere that doesn't include the "might is right" and "ends justify the means." I've looked into just about all of them that I've ever heard of. My problem with this is that if God can arbitrarily change definitions on you of good and evil, then how and why would there be Scriptures about our reasoning together with Him, forsaking our thoughts and taking His, being imitators of God, and numerous other passages that would necessitate that the elect were worse than devils upon the supposition of such a changing scale of right and wrong. Then the crusades are justified. If you could ever conclusively prove the Christianity of Hitler, although there's lots of published books to the contrary that indicate that like Saddam Hussein that he was actually a Satanist. But if you could ever prove conclusively that he was a Christian, which isn't likely when you go deeper in studying history with primary sources, but if you could, then the Holocaust would be justified 'cause after all, God reigning with His saints did it. See what I mean? Everyone on the streets would deserve prison and everyone in prison would deserve immediate pardon and reparations for their lost time. The logic falls apart for anyone that doesn't need to be locked up. Because the Scriptures challenge us to be just like Him.
Yeah I sort of see what you mean Martin.
Regarding comparing man's actions with God's, it doesn't completely work though.
For example is it just and good for God to send a flood to wipe out humanity? Yes. Why? Because God will bring about a greater good and has the power to reconcile all things and restore all things. But is it just and good for a man to take another life? Most of the time, no.
Is it just and good for God to raise up Pharoah to punish the people? Yes. Why? Because God is using Pharoah for a greater good and because God has the power to reconcile all. But is it just and good for Pharoah to punish the people? No, because Pharoah does not have the ultimate power to reconcile all things.
Thus we come to the problem of eternal punishment. As soon as you make a punishment that God inflicts eternal, we have removed the possibility that God will bring about a greater good and use His power to reconcile all things.
Therefore no eternal punishment can be just or good.
Then I wonder where all the salvation stuff is about. What was the use of Jesus.
If people to good the goto Heaven. God likes that.
But according to OP He also like to torture. So each way He benefits.
"Punishing the creation eternally for being exactly as the creator intended it to be is justice and is a sign that the creator is good."
I can write down dozens of statements about God. But that doesn't mean they are true.
"justice" "sign that the creator is good" are 2 truths that are intended to condition you for the remainder of the statement.
Logically I think it breaks down at step 3.
Me too because:
Isn't the Bible about learning the ways of God?
Then that also means God forgives 70 times 7.
That sound the opposite of bad luck you fry.
And then I even argue from the view of free will.
But as the OP states "as the creator intended"
Then not only justice comes into play but also 'being responsible for'
And that sorta means being extra mild on judgements.
Bit UR like I would say :winkgrin:
But then our logic can be flawed. So we need to check what Father/Son say on the subject.
And that is something different as we know....
Basicly everyone can make claims and prove that claim by steps.
That's easy. Until you have to backup those claims.
Quote from: legoman on April 30, 2009, 11:39:56 PM
Yeah I sort of see what you mean Martin.
Regarding comparing man's actions with God's, it doesn't completely work though.
For example is it just and good for God to send a flood to wipe out humanity? Yes. Why? Because God will bring about a greater good and has the power to reconcile all things and restore all things. But is it just and good for a man to take another life? Most of the time, no.
Is it just and good for God to raise up Pharoah to punish the people? Yes. Why? Because God is using Pharoah for a greater good and because God has the power to reconcile all. But is it just and good for Pharoah to punish the people? No, because Pharoah does not have the ultimate power to reconcile all things.
Thus we come to the problem of eternal punishment. As soon as you make a punishment that God inflicts eternal, we have removed the possibility that God will bring about a greater good and use His power to reconcile all things.
Therefore no eternal punishment can be just or good.
:thumbsup:
Quote from: legoman on April 30, 2009, 11:39:56 PM
Yeah I sort of see what you mean Martin.
Regarding comparing man's actions with God's, it doesn't completely work though.
Have you ever looked into Hebrew permissive verbs? The same mistake was made in the Septuignt that was made in the Authorized Version with translating Hebrew permissives in a causative fashion. Dr. Robert Young, author of Young's Analytical Concordance, has a book called "Hints to Bible Interpretation." If you can't find a copy of the book, if you've simply got a Young's Analytical Concordance, the outline of that book I'm mentioning is in the front of that Concordance. I don't think the online versions would include the lengthy introduction, though I could be wrong and someone finds the very website. But it's worth at least sitting down in a Barnes and Noble with a Young's Concordance and spending the half hour, or perhaps a couple of hours with a notepad handy, for getting through those first few pages of the Concordance. I seem to be about the only one that'll read the lengthy introductions
to reference books, but often those wind up being the equivalent of a college education with things mentioned there that aren't necessarily mentioned elsewhere. Or without the vital info, you're not on the lookout for stuff in the volume. A lot of sovereignty objections that are raised against some of the things that either I or Christ or an early Christian would say about the seed principle of the Kingdom are very quickly resolved on a passage by passage basis when you have a much closer look at the verbs in question. Hint: when God looks cut throat in the Old Testament and totally out of character with the New, in all probability a permissive and then the whole question comes into play of the differences between the pre: "dethroning of principalities and powers at the Cross world," and issues of authority, submission, trickery, et. al., and our world. "The world that was..."
Quote from: martincisneros on May 01, 2009, 12:29:43 AM
Quote from: legoman on April 30, 2009, 11:39:56 PM
Yeah I sort of see what you mean Martin.
Regarding comparing man's actions with God's, it doesn't completely work though.
Have you ever looked into Hebrew permissive verbs? The same mistake was made in the Septuignt that was made in the Authorized Version with translating Hebrew permissives in a causative fashion. Dr. Robert Young, author of Young's Analytical Concordance, has a book called "Hints to Bible Interpretation." If you can't find a copy of the book, if you've simply got a Young's Analytical Concordance, the outline of that book I'm mentioning is in the front of that Concordance. I don't think the online versions would include the lengthy introduction, though I could be wrong and someone finds the very website. But it's worth at least sitting down in a Barnes and Noble with a Young's Concordance and spending the half hour, or perhaps a couple of hours with a notepad handy, for getting through those first few pages of the Concordance. I seem to be about the only one that'll read the lengthy introductions to reference books, but often those wind up being the equivalent of a college education with things mentioned there that aren't necessarily mentioned elsewhere. Or without the vital info, you're not on the lookout for stuff in the volume. A lot of sovereignty objections that are raised against some of the things that either I or Christ or an early Christian would say about the seed principle of the Kingdom are very quickly resolved on a passage by passage basis when you have a much closer look at the verbs in question. Hint: when God looks cut throat in the Old Testament and totally out of character with the New, in all probability a permissive and then the whole question comes into play of the differences between the pre: "dethroning of principalities and powers at the Cross world," and issues of authority, submission, trickery, et. al., and our world. "The world that was..."
Is this the kind of thing you're talking about, Martin?
http://sg.geocities.com/saltandlight5/chasten.html
Man, I want to get a copy of that book now. Too bad it's out of print: Maybe I'll get lucky and find a copy somewhere.
Here's a specific example:
"And said, If thou wilt diligently hearken to the voice of the LORD thy God, and wilt do that which is right in his sight, and wilt give ear to his commandments, and keep all his statutes, I will put none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians: for I am the LORD that healeth thee. Exodus 15:26
Robert Young says that it should be "I will allow (or permit) these desease to come upon you" and "...which I allowed upon the Egyptians"
As I said, Young says that there is a verb form which is permissive but always translated causative in English Bibles.
You wrote that this is possible. Do you have more information on these "causative" and "permissive" forms? The word for '"I will put" none of these diseases upon thee, which I have brought upon the Egyptians:'is the imperfect tense. In Hebrew the imperfect verb denotes action that is incomplete. It is an action that is still continuing. It is most often translated in the future tense in English.
For example in Exodus 3:14, "God said to Moses, " I am who I am"; and He said, "Thus you shall say to the sons of Israel, ` I am has sent me to you.' " In that verse I am is in the imperfect tense. It means that God is with Moses and will continue to be with Moses. It is an incomplete action. Therefore it is not punctiliar. A better translation wouild be I will be who I will be. It comes fromt he Hebrew verb to be.
I don't know that there is anything different about the form, other than that Hebrew has different tenses in the same verbwhich would have diferent forms of the verb. There is the qal. niphal, piel, pual, hiphil, hophal, hithpael and a few others.
qal denots simple action in the actrive voice
niphal is simple action in the passive voice
piel is intensive action in the active voice
pual is intensive action in the passive voice
hiphil is causative action in the active voice
hophal is causative action in the passive voice
hithpael is intensive, causative, reflexive, action.
In Exodus 15:26, "I will put" is in the qal imperfect. I believe it is a jussive use of the verb.
About permissive and potential action:
16.2 Cohortative
a. The cohortative occurs only in the first person (singular or plural) of the imperfect.
b. It is fromed by attaching a qames hay to the end of the verb.
c. The cohortative usually connotes the idea of either potential or permissive action.
16.3 Jussive
A. The jussive usually occurs in the third person (singular or plural) of the imperfect, although it is occasionally found in the first or second persons of the subject.
B. The form is usually the same as the normal imperfect and may be identified by the context in which it is used.
C. The jussive usually connotes the ideas of potential or permissive action.
From HEBREW NOTES page 14 by Bob R. Ellis and Harry B. Hunt
In Exodus 15:26 it does not have a qames hay added to the end therefore it must be a jussive.
I think Young is right."
So I wonder if this is the case where God says in Isaiah, "I make peace and create evil." ? I'm wondering if the verb create there is in the cohortative or jussive form...
What about this verse? I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things. Is. 45:7.
There may be some nuances, but it seems to me God takes responsibility. The first few pages of Thomas Kissinger's book The Noble Berean explains well God's Plan for the Ages, His use of evil/darkness, to contrast against His love and light, teaching us the difference...so that in the ages to come He will be all in all, and we will worship Him as such.
Yeah, He permits evil. He's the Lord Who does all these things. That's how I've always heard that passage from Isaiah read by people who actually have a copy of that book by Robert Young. And that's how that's always made the most sense to me as the most consistent with all of the Scriptures and His nature. He was taking responsibility for His people and taking the responsibility of their actions straight to the Cross. There are very definite sign posts in the Scriptures, such as John 10:10, James 1:13-17, etc., but many folks can't accept that and throw around charges of duality which does nothing about the Word of God actually saying that, since that's what it says.
Many times, either a smoke screen, or the victimization by a smoke screen put up to maintain a portion of the Calvinist system that God is both Saviour and Satan himself. I've personally permitted things before. Doesn't make me the guilty rascal. Contextually in Isaiah, He's obviously alluding back to Deuteronomy 28 about all of the evils He'd permit upon Israel. Every reference to evil in a passage with regards to His dealings with Israel goes back to dealing with the context of where He defined the parameters of their lives in Deuteronomy and elsewhere in the Law.
Scholars that have referred to the 5 books of Psalms corresponding to the 5 books of the Torah have found that implication in all of the other Old Testament writings as well. Stephen in Acts gives us the context/framework/mindset of the Judaism of his day with referring to Moses having given them words that were spirit and life, i.e. living Words for their era, that yet anticipated the New Covenant.
I've never read all of the way through a Young's Translation, or I don't think that I have, [trying to remember,] to see if he incorporated that in either the translation or any notes accompanying the translation, or if that was a later discovery of his or a suppressed one because of the theological intolerance of his times to where he simply had to refer to it in a different work so that his translation would have a chance of leavening the Body of Christ.
At least, I don't think I've read all of the way through one. Many of us get copies of stuff over the years with the best of intentions, but things come up, copies of stuff get lost, and in my case about half a dozen really really major paradigm shifts occur. And sometimes the gray matter in the skull is left wondering "what hit me? did you get the license plate on that truck??"
I don't know the difference in the dates between when "Hints to Bible Interpretation" would have been written and when Young's Translation would have been released. I've got a translation or two like Youngs and NASB where I like their handling of certain books and could practically quote the whole book in question verbatim, but ask me about another passage from the same translation and uh...
I'm stronger in the New Testament than necessarily in all parts of the Old. I've spent a few years now looking at interpretations that totally side-step the permissives issue and it's increasingly the growing accusation that God's the author of confusion, contrary to the precise Words of Scripture that say otherwise. It reintroduces the hard feelings regarding God that UR, Postmill, and everything else God has been teaching me totally takes away.
Every genuine revelation I've ever received of the Gospel, in any of it's various channels of outpouring of divine grace have always consistently peeled away more and more of this psychotic view of God, as I've heard Carlton Pearson refer to it as, that says that all of our disasters are necessarily God working out His hard feelings towards us. Every revelation of the Gospel that I've ever received has always screamed at me that God's not been my problem, but has always been my Saviour sitting on the sidelines until I'd get a clue that my best player wasn't on the field in the game of my life. So, let Him out there to score the next 10 touch downs we've been very desperately needing!
I know it's very foreign still to the thinking of a lot of people that God's number one hindrance is our unrenewed minds, but that was St. Paul's Gospel and he knew of no other revelation of grace and mercy. (Romans 12, et. al.) The discipleship of the nations that we're all called to is for the transformation of the thinking of all men everywhere until the great gulf between their lives and what Christ has accomplished on the Cross is crossed and all of their Hells are emptied (2Corinthians 10:3-6).
It's deeply disturbing to me sometimes when people don't see any difference whatsoever between the world where principalities and powers in heavenly places were enthroned and the world we now live in where they've been permanently dethroned. Many of the Universalists that I know totally set that aside. The changes that happened in the spirit realm and with all of mankind and with every creature everywhere is more than philosophical, abstract, and obtuse. God is satisfied and the shackles of death have been falling away all of this time.
Quote from: martincisneros on May 01, 2009, 07:04:23 AM
Yeah, He permits evil. He's the Lord Who does all these things.
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Assuming 'from the beginning' means when he was created I think things go a little further than 'allow'.
Create something that only knows to create havoc and then allow it.
Sounds a bit when standing in court for shooting someone defending yourself by saying "I didn't kill him. I just pulled the trigger. But the bullet did the killing."
Quote from: WhiteWings on May 01, 2009, 07:53:20 AMAssuming 'from the beginning' means when he was created
Precisely. There are other beginnings in Scripture. Covenant of Abraham. Dispensation of Law. The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the opening verse of Mark, etc. At what point was there: a Word to be stolen from their hearts according to Mark 4? At what point is the seed really introduced if not since the days of Abraham, although there were previous hints? What about from the beginning of his spiritual death and the casting of his soul into Hades rather than when he was created perfect in the day he was created? Not offering a definitive answer at this point. Just challenging a look at all sides.
I typed this before I saw your post Martin...good deal, looking at both sides indeed...I may have even created another side in my post :laughing7:. So I wrote;
If how you see it Martin is accurate, on one hand, that seems a good thing. God not actively creating/causing/bringing....I did some research on the R. Young thing, and it's pretty sparse. I have a copy of the YLT, 1898, and he does translate as "I [am] Jehovah, doing all these things.." I wasn't able to find a date on the Hints on Bible Interpretation, but it appears Young died like 10 years prior to his translation being published, so ?...
On the other hand, more as you say WW, and I have said; there are several "big" names in UR, A.P. Adams, J. Preston Eby, Martin Zender, and Thomas Kissinger to name a few, that see it as, in summary; God actively creates/causes and brings evil upon man as part of His plan to bring us into His ultimate will.
So then, juggling both hands, let's say even if it's the way you present it Martin, J. Preston Eby has this to say about it; "It was God who planted the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in the midst of the Garden. It was God who gave the law that man should neither touch this tree nor eat of it. And it was God who made the serpent and put him in the Garden and sent him along one beautiful day to tempt the man. It was GOD!
God is responsible for what happened in the Garden...."
So God either actively causing, or passively allowing, doesn't He still take credit/responsibility for it, and therefor use it for His purposes? (Which, either way the good news is, His purposes are good!)
Then in line with what legoman said earlier and I gave a :thumbsup: to, A.P. Adams, who believes God actively brings/causes, says the following, which I believe is a sort of a bottom line, whichever way we see it;
"....would by no means clear God from the responsibility of His acts since God is his [man's] creator and has made him in the first place just what he is, well knowing what the result would be.
Now I hold that the following proposition is self-evident. Given a God of infinite power, wisdom and goodness, He is responsible for ALL things that exist. And this also follows from the wisdom and goodness of God: All things that exist are for an intelligent and benevolent end. These conclusions are inevitable from the premises; they cannot be modified except by modifying the premises. For instance, if you say that some things exist contrary to God's will, then it follows that God is not all-powerful; and you cannot escape this conclusion by bringing in the orthodox doctrine of man's [edit]; for whatever a man may [then] do, He is responsible for it who made him [that way]."
Quote from: martincisneros on May 01, 2009, 09:00:10 AM
Quote from: WhiteWings on May 01, 2009, 07:53:20 AMAssuming 'from the beginning' means when he was created
Precisely. There are other beginnings in Scripture. Covenant of Abraham. Dispensation of Law. The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the opening verse of Mark, etc. At what point was there: a Word to be stolen from their hearts according to Mark 4? At what point is the seed really introduced if not since the days of Abraham, although there were previous hints? What about from the beginning of his spiritual death and the casting of his soul into Hades rather than when he was created perfect in the day he was created? Not offering a definitive answer at this point. Just challenging a look at all sides.
I'm not wanna turn this thread into a fallen angel argument but I have to mention it give you my view.
The beginning is rather vague
- When he was created.
- When earth was created.
- Just before he fell.
- When he started his chat with Eve.
- Start of Super Bowl. -> sounds like another joke but I hope it brings across what I'm trying to say...
When was his spiritual death? What is spiritual death? Can you be spiritually alive when sins dwells in you.
God is perfect and therefore can not sin.
Satan can sin so he was not perfect. Never was because that is able to develop an evil mind, even after being 666 triljon years old wasn't perfect to begin with. It had that famous musterd seed planted with. Evil seed this time.
So IMO God created him evil.
Intended him to be evil. If not it means God made an mistake in his creation.
So beginning is the very moment God finished creating him.
Quote from: jabcat on May 01, 2009, 09:07:33 AM
On the other hand, more as you say WW, and I have said; there are several "big" names in UR, A.P. Adams, J. Preston Eby, Martin Zender, and Thomas Kissinger to name a few, that see it as, in summary; God actively creates/causes and brings evil upon man as part of His plan to bring us into His ultimate will.
You know what the thing is Jabcat; one has to look at it from the pov of view of someone with unlimited powers. (God)
If one of your sons turns into a murder a judge won't hold you responsible for it. You did your best rasing him within your human limits. The character of your sone is only partly in the hands of you and your wife.
There are variables that you have no control over.
But.... God doesn't have that excuse. He has control over all variables. If He doesn't like them He can alter them. But that would mean He was caught by suprise and was forced some corrective action. That's not perfect. So I conclude He not only had/has control over the variables that make satans charater; no He even designed them that way.
I know what you're saying, and that's the way I've been seeing it too...on the surface, it doesn't set well with me, that God would bring evil, but on the other hand, even "just" allowing it would still make Him ultimately responsible...because He could have changed it, as you say. So even though it "bothers me", there seem to be multiple scriptures (NT, not OT) about God lowering us into this condition, that it's "not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God that shows mercy", "God turned all to disobedience that He might have mercy on all"....I'm really just not sure how the "allowing" vs "causing" argument holds up to all those verses... I just think right now that my role is to humble myself to God's will, not grumble against the Creator, etc...and trust He loves me, has a great plan, and will fix it all, even when I personally can't see or understand it.
QuoteSo even though it "bothers me",
I understand what you say.
Gonna sound weird but you have to study without feelings IMO.
Feelings control you. Feelings makes you twist things to what you like them to be. You make your own image of God which is a false god.
You have to read the words not your own thoughts....
it's a kind of circular argument:
they claim the Bible teaches everlasting torment
+ God is just
= everlasting torment is just
at the moment I know no good counter argument (except that the Bible does not teach it), according to a human sense of justice it's not just, now you can argue God gave men this sense for justice, if a man being evil would not torture anybody endlessly, why should God, being good, just and love do something like this.
everlasting torment makes no sense, there is neither a rational nor a scriptural reason why God should do this.
there is no sane argument for this doctrine which makes it hard, if not impossible to support, except with pseudobiblical arguments, even if men were so utterly wicked that we deserve everlasting torment, there is no reason why God, being good, should actually inflict it.
Yeah, I'm not sure it ultimately makes any difference whether God creates or allows evil, or both. It is all ultimately under His control, He's obviously taken responsibility, and He's going to use it all to accomplish His perfect will, no matter how you look at the question of whether He creates or allows evil.
The scripture does say that He created the waster to destroy, regardless of whether you believe Satan fell or was created the way he is...
Quote from: Doc on May 04, 2009, 11:51:12 PM
Yeah, I'm not sure it ultimately makes any difference whether God creates or allows evil, or both. It is all ultimately under His control, He's obviously taken responsibility, and He's going to use it all to accomplish His perfect will, no matter how you look at the question of whether He creates or allows evil.
The scripture does say that He created the waster to destroy, regardless of whether you believe Satan fell or was created the way he is...
:gthumbsup:
Quote from: legoman on April 30, 2009, 10:27:53 PM
"Punishing the creation eternally for being exactly as the creator intended it to be is justice and is a sign that the creator is good."
Logically, can the above statement be true? Perhaps something along the lines of this:
1. God is good and just
2. Whatever God does is good and just
3. God torments some of the creation eternally, so eternal torment must be good and just
4. Effectively, God defines the meaning of good and just
Logically I think it breaks down at step 3. Then step 4 leads to a "might is right" philosophy.
Effectively God appears to define a word to mean its intrinsic opposite. ie. justice means to be fair, to judge fairly, to give a just punishment. Therefore since God is always right, eternal torment must be justice. Even though
"intrinsically" eternal torment can only be unjust.
Is there anything intrinsic apart from God? ie. standards of good/evil, justice/injustice, etc.
Under UR beliefs, "might is right" definitions and "intrinsic" definitions are the same. No "intrinsic" defintions need to be redefined.
Under ET beliefs, "might is right" definitions alter "intrinsic" definitions to be the opposite. Effectively good is called evil and evil is called good.
Comments?
This reminds of the old two-horned dilemma: "Do the gods will something because it is good, or is something good because the gods will it?" Either way, the idea is that the gods are subject to a higher moral standard than themselves (because they do something because it is good), or morals become arbitrary, only to be defined as what the gods do or do not do. But of course, there's a third option, especially in light of a God of Love. God wills something because
HE IS GOOD.
On the idea of judgement and justice, I think God will only judge out of his loving-kindness. He may allow people to reap what they sow, but that doesn't make him inclined to follow some moral law above his Being that causes him to necessarily punish his creatures for eternity. Especially when torturing them for eternity isn't in line with his character. For him to torture somebody endlessly he would literally have to cease to exist as he would be eternally counting their wrongs against them, which is something Love does not do (1 Cor. 13:5). Love can only use judgements to bring righteousness! In fact, by judgements God is literally not counting their wrongs against them, because he is using the judgements to bring righteousness, and to make them better people (that is, HE IS HELPING THEM). If God were to torture forever, or utterly annihilate someone, he would be counting their wrongs against them without end. (They'd either suffer forever, or be dead forever.) In either case, God would count wrongs. But if he brings judgements to bring righteousness, he is not counting wrongs, but rather improving persons!
Every time I have asked this question:
How could a Just And Loving God punish his creation for all eternity, and still be just and loving?
The response that I recieved was that God is of an Infinite Nature so that also his punishments had to be of an infinite nature. It looks like logic but does it work?
if all sin were punishable the same way then one who litters and commits a crime against the earth would be punished for an ammount of time noless than the time that the earth had been in existance, or no less than the time that the earth had left in existance.
and in no way can we call eternal punishment "punishment
it is obviously torture because there is no chance for reform.
Quote from: preistsplace on May 25, 2009, 08:00:26 PM
The response that I recieved was that God is of an Infinite Nature so that also his punishments had to be of an infinite nature.
Using the same logic I can also say that His infinite nature requires infinite forgiving/love.
true but that still leaves infinite punishment and infinite mercy in conflict since we are using the same logic. We would have to show the contradiction and propose the solution. Right on though because if punishment is infinite then mercy cannot be infinite and vice versa. Scripturally the infinite mercy has much more back up.God Bless