finite SINNING punished with INFINITE torture?

[BobRyan]

Originally Posted by BobRyan
Each sin is its own sin -- each sin requires its own payment its own debt. For each sin the debt is EITHER infinite OR it is not.

As usual - it is left to me to state the obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

If that is true then you are eternally lost with no chance for salvation--if this is what you truly believe.

Making stuff up has not helped your arguments in the past - and it is not working here either sir.

The obvious point remains - the penalty is EITHER infinite OR it is not. It does not matter whether you set that "infinite" debt at the level of a single sin OR at the level of a single PERSON who has sinned many sins in terms of failing to then account for ALL of mankind.

We sin every day.
Jesus paid the penalty for all of our sins once; and once for all.
Each individual sin does not need to be paid for.

And again - each time you make a clear statement in favor of error I will point it out.

that was another one.

the notion that EACH sin does NOT have its own penalty DEFINED in the writing of God's Law is glaringly obvious error sir.


That is an unbiblical if not totally ridiculous concept.


Rather Christ took the full burden of sin, for every person, of all generations upon himself when he paid the penalty of all those sins at Calvary with his blood.

This is a statement of AGGREGATION - it speaks of the sum total.

The point remains sir.

Those who turn from this Bible truth TOWARD the man-made tradition of infinite debt owed by each person OR infinite debt owed by each sin - embrace a self-conflicted man-made tradition that denies the atonement for "mankind" by limiting the price paid merely to the infinite debt OWED either by one PERSON or by one person's SIN depending on which view they take.

Obviously.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

1 Peter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

1 Peter 2:24 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.

2 Corinthians 5:21 For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Hebrews 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Hebrews 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Galatians 3:10 For as many as are of the works of the law are under the curse: for it is written, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the book of the law to do them.

Galatians 3:13 Christ hath redeemed us from the curse of the law, being made a curse for us: for it is written, Cursed is every one that hangeth on a tree:

Read the Scripture above. Your theology does not agree with. First, Gal.3:10 states that you must keep all the law if you are to saved by the law. If you fail but in one point you are just as guilty as if you were to break every law in the book. The same teaching is found in James 2:10. You are cursed if you don't continue in ALL things that are written in the law to do them.

Thus it was Christ that was made a curse for US, all of us, in every generation.

He sacrificed himself ONCE, "to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself" That means all the sin of mankind collectively (Heb.9>26). That is the same teaching as all of the above verses. Not one of them indicate paying for individual sins. Not one verse.
He died once, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.
He made him to be sin for us--all of us. It happened only one time. It was for all of our sins.
He was once offered to bear the sins of many.

Read them all Bob. They go directly contrary to what you teach. You offer opinion Bob. I give you the Bible.

 

[BobRyan]

Read my post and respond to the points raised please.

Your last post argues that christ DID make an atoning sacrifice for all sins of all mankind. Which is great - except it is the very thing that exposes the flaw in your own argument!!

The atonement ONCE for ALL argument only works in the model that shows that FINITE sin requires FINITE torment and the INFINTE God then pays for the accumulate FINITE debt of ALL mankind - ONCE FOR ALL at the Cross.

Your act of highlighting the flaw in your own argument is not helping you sustain that failed argument.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: The Bible Answerman radio program has a good series this week with a scholar from England that has written a book on the subject of redemption.
But on the program today a caller observed that it seems that the passion of Christ - the suffering of Christ paying our debt for us - was "not enough" IF it is really true that INFINITE TORTURE is the payment owed by each sinner.

By that standard - one INFINITE God could only pay one INFINITE payment - the payment owed by just ONE sinner. In fact the caller asked whether Christ should be in the state of torture-in-death forever.

HP: The problem is simply that the caller quoted does not understand the atonement and its relationship to the penalty of sin. Christ did not pay any penalty in the sense of a literal payment as is so often claimed. That is pure fallacy. Christ did not, as I have pointed out repeatedly to BR, pay a literal payment for even one sin, for the penalty of sin is indeed eternal separation from God. If Christ paid that one time He would still be separated from God.

BR: But this brings up a good question for those who believe that FINITE sin should require "INFINITE TORTURE" for their family friends and loved ones that do not go to heaven. How do you talk yourself into believing that FINITE beings guilty of FINITE sin - should be punished by INFINITE TORTURE?

HP:Here BR uses the classic approach of creating a problem to suggest a solution when the fact is that he starts from a false problem or premise. Who said sin was finite? You may have a finite number of sins, but what does that have to do with the nature of sin being ‘finite’? Absolutely nothing. There is not the least shred of evidence that the intrinsic nature of sin is finite. Quite to the contrary, God, by attaching an eternal punishment to it, indicates to me that sin is indeed eternal in nature, ever increasing in strength and stopping at nothing in eternity short of usurping of the very throne of God.

BR: IF God is INFINTE and the punishment demanded of FINITE beings is ALSO INFINITE - Then it stands to reason that God only pays the debt of ONE sinner.

HP: Where does Scripture ever state that one solitary sin was literally paid for? That is a false and misleading presupposition foreign to the Word of God and contrary to any vestige of reason and logic.

BR: Others who accept God's Word as it says that "BOTH body AND soul are DESTROYED in fiery hell" Matt 10:28 of course would not want to insist on a contradicting doctrine that comes from man-made tradition which states that FINITE sin should be punished by INFINITE TORTURe. For the Matt 10:28 "accepting" view - FINITE SIN incurs the punishment of FINITE torment and Christ suffers for the ACCUMULATED (massively large but finite) debt owed by all mankind.

HP: If ones desire is to reason from the Word of God, start with establishing the premise that one solitary sin was literally paid for. Without doing that first, you are simply fighting your own paper duck.

BR: So I throw this question out to the group - how do you get yourself to the point of believing that FINITE sin is punished by INFINITE torture?

HP: You beg the question as to sin being finite ‘in nature.’ Prove it by Scripture and or reason.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

There is no such thing as "finite sin", for then sin would not have been unto death. What concept do you have of sin! It is because you this limited view of sin that you are able to entertain your limited views of God's revenge upon sinners. "For unto Me, belongs revenge" .... "says God". Get your idea about God right, first, then it will follow that you will have the right idea about sin and its reward.
To begin with you would have reversed the phrasng your topic; you would have asked: Unlimited Love, Infinite God, but finite punishment for sin? And you would have discovered that finite punishment, would be impossible. (But between you and me, I nevertheless believe somehow God in His omnipotence, has found a way through Jesus Christ, to a new heaven and a new earth wherein dwelleth no evil, and an ever ongoing hell cannot be evil. Or can it if the deed and will of God? I leave the hell to God; it's none of my business.)

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Ed E:

"We Christians saved by Messiah Jesus are
to spend an infinite time set (the Millinnia of Eternity)
in Heaven."

GE:

I'm so glad this earth when made new will still be in heaven otherwise I would never go to heaven.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

GE: I'm so glad this earth when made new will still be in heaven otherwise I would never go to heaven.

HP: What am I missing here? Why should a ‘new earth’ be understood as this old earth re-worked? Does not Scripture state that this earth and everything temporal will be dissolved?

This earth is finite and temporal. It would appear to me that what God calls the ‘new earth’ will not be finite, and will not be temporal.

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

Read my post and respond to the points raised please.

Your last post argues that christ DID make an atoning sacrifice for all sins of all mankind. Which is great - except it is the very thing that exposes the flaw in your own argument!!

The atonement ONCE for ALL argument only works in the model that shows that FINITE sin requires FINITE torment and the INFINTE God then pays for the accumulate FINITE debt of ALL mankind - ONCE FOR ALL at the Cross.

Your act of highlighting the flaw in your own argument is not helping you sustain that failed argument.

In Christ,

Bob

GE:

May I chip in and point to Bob's old trick. He always speaks of 'atoning sacrifice' with the door left open for an uncompleted atonement that still should be going on in heaven. Now he must provide the sins which Jesus must keep on forgiving. DHK, see?

 

[Gerhard Ebersoehn]

HP: What am I missing here? Why should a ‘new earth’ be understood as this old earth re-worked? Does not Scripture state that this earth and everything temporal will be dissolved?

This earth is finite and temporal. It would appear to me that what God calls the ‘new earth’ will not be finite, and will not be temporal.

GE:

"the new EARTH ..." It says it all. The earth will be the inheritance of the meek, Jesus promised --- He meant of course, the earth made new. God will not allow the works of His hands go to nothing, dissolved, obliviated - wahtever. He makes it new some day when Christ will come. Jesus said he will come again -- not to deal with sin again -- when all will be restored to the end-plan of God - since the beginning - UPON THIS EARTH. "God so loved the WORLD -- this earth, the work of His own hand, his WILL shall not be disappointed WITH IT.

 

[BobRyan]

GE:
Now he must provide the sins which Jesus must keep on forgiving. DHK, see?

Huh???

#1. The Bible never says "we must provide sins". In 1Cor 10 the BIBLE says "NO sin has overtaken you but such as is common to man and GOD IS FAITHFUL who will NOT allow..." hmm might be good for you to read the rest of it so that you don't accuse me of authoring scripture again and asking my why I wrote it...:laugh:

#2. The BIBLE SHOWS us in Lev 16 that the Atonement teaching does NOT end in Vs 11 with the Atoning Sacrifice! Obviously.

#3. The BIBLE says in 1John 2:2 that Christ IS "The Atoning Sacrifice for our sins".

#4. THE BIBLE says in Lev 16 that the unique Role of Christ as our High Priest is ALSO a key phase of the Atonement process God defines for us!

but the traditions of man say "ignore all of that -- make up whatever you like instead".

As you point out - I am not much of one for endorsing the traditions of man over the Word of God.

I am funny that way!

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

DHK, the problem as I see it with the view of many is that they hold to a literal payment of all sin and then make it less than effective to do what they say it accomplished. I see no way to escape the necessitated illogical ends of the literal payment theory, If one accepts the idea that all sins have been atoned for in a literal sense, you cannot esacpe universalism. On the other hand, if you say God atoned for all sin literally, but it is only made effective in the lives of the elect, you find yourself entertaining a stark contradiction, God’s atonement less than effective to accomplish that which it is said to have accomplished as well as representing God as a respecter of persons. If one holds to a literal payment, and only some have it applied to their lives via the election of God, you have the necessitated damnation of the wicked, never even having the possibility of forgiveness of sins due to the fact of limited atonement.

I personally see no other logical answer to this dilemma other than the acceptance of the idea that there was no literal payment at all. The atonement was a governmental proceeding that allowed Christ to suffer sufficiently that God accepted that suffering as a satisfaction of the penalty of the laws demands. It allows God to treat man governmentally ‘as if though’ he has not sinned when we satisfy the conditions He has set forth to make the atonement effective in our lives, i.e., repent, exercise faith, and then continue in obedience to the end.

 

[BobRyan]

DHK, the problem as I see it with the view of many is that they hold to a literal payment of all sin and then make it less than effective to do what they say it accomplished. I see no way to escape the necessitated illogical ends of the literal payment theory, If one accepts the idea that all sins have been atoned for in a literal sense, you cannot esacpe universalism.

As I have stated so many times we all need to pay attention to what the Bible actually says - in 1John 2:2 (NIV) the "Atoning Sacrifice" was completed at the cross - but the view God gives us in Lev 16 is that the PROCESS of atonement can not simply be truncated in vs 11 at the START - before the High Priestly role of Christ is completed.

However - you are right about one thing - ONCE he HAS ended that ministry (as we see at the end of Rev 15) THEN all who are atoned for are IN and since the process is done - the wicked remain outs. "Let he who is filthly be filthy still" is then pronounced.

So at the across the Atoning Sacrifice is sufficient for ALL - but at the end of the Atonement Process -- it is the SAINTS and ONLY the Saints that we see redeenmed in Dan 7:22 when at the conclusion of Christ's work "judgment is passed in favor of the saints".


in Christ,

Bob

 

[hillclimber1]

The only sin the unsaved man will suffer for is the sin of unbelief. Forever apart from The Savior. terrible

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

BR: we all need to pay attention to what the Bible actually says - in 1John 2:2 (NIV) the "Atoning Sacrifice" was completed at the cross - but the view God gives us in Lev 16 is that the PROCESS of atonement can not simply be truncated in vs 11 at the START - before the High Priestly role of Christ is completed.

HP: In our dispensation what determines Christ becoming our High Priest? Certainly He does not fulfill the role of High priest for ‘all’ sinners does He? If He did, universalism would be found to be true. What determines who He will and who He will not fulfill the role of High Priest for in our dispensation?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Hillclimber: The only sin the unsaved man will suffer for is the sin of unbelief. Forever apart from The Savior. terrible

HP: Where does Scripture indicate that? Certainly unbelief is sin, but all selfishness is not unbelief, yet it is certainly sin and will be punished, will it not?

 

[Amy.G]

I thought one is punished for their sins because of their unbelief. If one refuses to believe in the Savior's payment for their sin, they are going to have to take the punishment on themselves. They have no advocate.

 

[DHK]

Your last post argues that christ DID make an atoning sacrifice for all sins of all mankind. Which is great - except it is the very thing that exposes the flaw in your own argument!!

The atonement ONCE for ALL argument only works in the model that shows that FINITE sin requires FINITE torment and the INFINTE God then pays for the accumulate FINITE debt of ALL mankind - ONCE FOR ALL at the Cross.

Your act of highlighting the flaw in your own argument is not helping you sustain that failed argument.

In Christ,

Bob

There is no flaw in my argument; neither can there be since all that I did was quote Scripture. Do you argue with Scripture?
The Scriptures clearly show that Christ died for all of our sins. He died once--once for all. There is no indication of dying for individual sins. You have yet to point that out with Scripture. You spout out opinions without Scriptural backing. Give me one good reason why anyone should believe an opinion not based on the Bible.

Perhaps the words finite and infinite are not the proper terms to use here. It would be much easier if you defined man and God with the words that the Bible uses: eternal, immortal, everlasting. We don't find the word infinite too often in the Bible, so why use it?

If used in this context: "Can a 'finite mind' understand an "infinite God'? the answer is obviously, NO!
But that is not the context when speaking about sin and its eternal consequences. Eternal is a much better adjective because it can point in one direction forever. Infinite in this way can become ambiguous. It is more of a mathematical term as has been pointed out. So why use it?

Sin has eternal consequences. It will separate you from God for all eternity. You will suffer in the LOF for all eternity. There is eternal punishment clearly taught in the Bible. Reading Rev.20:10-15 teaches that, and the teaching there cannot be avoided and by a six year old. I have children that learned to read at the age of four. They could understand it. Why can't you?

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Amy: I thought one is punished for their sins because of their unbelief. If one refuses to believe in the Savior's payment for their sin, they are going to have to take the punishment on themselves. They have no advocate.

HP: There is a consistent theme throughout Scripture, i.e. our sins have separated us from God. Sin is defined in Scripture not as the rejection of Jesus Christ, but as the willful disobedience to a known commandment of God. The rejection of Christ, if one has the opportunity to hear and reject it, is indeed a sin that will seal ones fate, but it is not ‘the’ damning sin. You can be a hot-in-tot having never heard of the gospel message and sin and become guilty before God and perish. Those that have heard and yet rejected the Savior’s offer, will indeed suffer the greater punishment.

 

[BobRyan]

The only sin the unsaved man will suffer for is the sin of unbelief.

What a great place for a Bible quote instead.

 

[BobRyan]

It would be much easier if you defined man and God with the words that the Bible uses: eternal, immortal, everlasting. We don't find the word infinite too often in the Bible, so why use it?

Ok

1 Tim 6
13I charge you in the presence of God, who gives life to all things, and of Christ Jesus, who testified the good confession before Pontius Pilate,

14that you keep the commandment without stain or reproach until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ,
15which He will bring about at the proper time--He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.

next.

In Christ,

Bob