I've written in recent times about the problem of sin and the reality of God as just. It hasn't sat well with some. As far as I can tell, some conclude that sins are no big deal. They refer to them as "typical sins of humanity" and would consider punishing someone with "an eternity of torment" unjust. In their words, this would be "an unjust and irrational and frankly, quite evil, punishment." If you believe in that kind of punishment for sin, they argue, you do so with "a set of human traditions." I said that sin requires death, to which they say, "Says who? WHO SAYS that all sin – of whatever shape or size or impact, must be paid for by a human life?"
I thought when it started that they simply had a different understanding of the nature of sin. Clearly that is true, but that last question tells me that it's much more. It's a different source for truth. It's a different standard of reality. That sounds too crazy, so I need to be clear. They understand sins to be "typical" and view them through a lens of human concepts. Quite understandable. If you steal in today's world, we don't send you to "eternal torment." In today's justice, if we argue "a life for a life," for instance, the prevailing perceptions would shout loudly "No!" Capital punishment is banished in a large part of the civilized world because it "violates justice." That's the common perception. Kind of a "consensus" argument. Why would anyone understand it differently? A mere "set of human traditions" perhaps? The bottom line, then, is their "Says who?". We need to answer that critical question.
Starting with that last "capital punishment" example, in Genesis we read, "Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image." (Gen 9:6) The text is Scripture, sure, but who was speaking? It was God. That is, this quote is the words of God in the word of God. And God in His word requires the death penalty for murder. That's who says. But that's just the tip of the iceberg.
Moving to the concept of "an eternity of torment," in Matthew we read, "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." (Matt 18:6). That's a bit harsh, isn't it? Who said it? That, of course, was Jesus. Using the same words with which Jesus condemned the Pharisees ("Woe to you" (Matt 23:13-35)), Jesus said, "Woe to the world for temptations to sin! For it is necessary that temptations come, but woe to the one by whom the temptation comes!" (Matt 18:7). He goes on to say some startling things. "If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire." (Matt 18:8-9). "Eternal fire" and "hell of fire"? Jesus's own words. Who speaks of "millstones" and "eternal fire" for sin? Jesus does. (Jesus referenced "eternal fire" twice in Matthew (Matt 18:8; Matt 25:41).) Jesus went on to describe hell as "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:48), which, as it turns out, is a quote from Isaiah 66:24. Sounds a lot like "eternal." Who says? Jesus. The concept of gnashing teeth in anguish is Jesus's (Matt 13:42). The concept of hell as "outer darkness" is Jesus's (Matt 25:30). Jesus warns, "Whoever says, 'You fool,' shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell." (Matt 5:22). The term "eternal punishment" comes from the lips of Jesus (Matt 25:46). The question was "Who says?" Reasonable question. The answer is "God says." The Father said it in the Old Testament. The Son said it in the New Testament. The rest of Scripture attests to the same.
Which brings us down to the fundamental difference. It is not merely a different understanding of the nature of sin. It is a different source of truth. I am not following some "set of human traditions." My source is the words of Scripture. My authority is the Father in the Old Testament and the Son in the Gospels and the Holy Spirit as the One who inspired the Scriptures as a whole, since the Scriptures, as a whole, maintain this position. I don't begin with "consensus" or "everyone understands ...". When Paul writes, "The wages of sin is death," (Rom 6:23), I conclude that the wages of sin is death. When Paul writes, "All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God," I conclude that all have sinned and that sin transgresses the glory of God. It doesn't take a mere "human tradition" to come to this. It does take a different source of truth to deny it.
11 comments:
As one might expect, the response is, essentially, "Says you!" and not (not ever), "I see your Scripture and will explain to you what it actually means instead of what you think it means." As one might expect, the simplest understanding is not the best, apparently, but the best understanding is not offered. As one might expect, the response is "You're wrong," and the only apparent rationale is "Because I think otherwise." Or, to put it another way, to those who disagree, WHO SAYS? (To those who disagree, that is a rhetorical question.)
Just once, I'd like to see an explanation of why scripture doesn't mean what is clearly being said ("eternal fire" for example), but that "eternal fire" actually doesn't mean "fire" at all, and "eternal" doesn't actually mean eternal. I'd like something a little more firm than "It can't mean that because that doesn't make sense to me.".
A while back I raised a question something like, "If our reward for doing good (ie minimizing our typical sins) is eternal, and that eternal reward is "fair", then why wouldn't eternal punishment be "fair" also?". I never really got much of an answer for that either.
It feels like I rarely get reasoned answers to questions like that. But maybe that's just me.
No, it's not just you.
I saw this the other day but had no opportunity to post a comment. Now I see Dan has made his own blog post from this, to which you responded. His attempts to provide an alternate understanding isn't really doing it for me. It's like he doesn't get what's wrong with his objections to our understandings. It's like he's answering questions never asked, but superficially seem to be.
With regard to eternal punishment, in a previous "discussion" on the subject, I proposed that he simply doesn't have the same regard for sin as does God. He thinks it's about a specific action, when I continued to speak only of sin. His tactic was to submit a hypothetical about a really good person stealing a pen, or some such, and whether or not it makes him worthy of eternal torment (or whatever hyperbolic term he thinks makes the Biblical concept sound more absurd). Or, he'd pooh-pooh the notion that a good person who doesn't accept Christ could be treated as a heinous person, like Hitler.
Clearly, he has "a different understanding of the nature of sin" as well as assuming the nature of God is no more than just a pal down the street. That is, if he doesn't think sin is worthy of eternal punishment, then by golly, God shouldn't either and best not or he's done with Him, by golly!
He has argued for some time that sin doesn't deserve "that kind" of punishment. You're right and I don't think that he'd disagree. He doesn't see sin the way you and I do. (Beginning with the notion of a hypothetical "good person" who, Scripture says, doesn't exist in nature.)
I suspect that he sees sin as an action, and only an action, that happens when people who are fundamentally "good", make a "mistake" and that these mistakes often happen through ignorance.
While I think that we would all agree that our sinful actions come from our sinful nature, and that when the scripture says that "no one" is good that it should be taken at face value.
It seems clear that we have a different view of sin as well as a different view of God.
I just stuck my toe in the cesspool, and am shocked to think that the "hyperbole" explanation passes for anything but unsupported opinion. The notion that offering unsupported/unproven human opinion as a way to refute "human" opinions, seems incredibly weak at the best and insane at the worst.
FYI, usually when I write about something that Dan has said, I quote his exact words, yet somehow quoting his exact words is misrepresenting him.
But, if it's hyperbolic, that doesn't mean there is no punishment for sin, simply that it's not as bad as it seems. I'm unclear as to the purpose of stating that hell is hyperbole is saying that sin doesn't need punishment.
It always seems to boil down to language, doesn't it? "Tolerance" means something different to me than to him. "Friendly" means something different. "Sin" means something different. Now "hyperbole" means something different. I understand hyperbole to mean "an exaggeration of a reality to make a point" and using "eternal fire" to mean "a light sentence" or something makes no sense.
David,
That's an excellent point. I pursued this line of thinking one time. I suggested that if Hell was simply eternal separation from God that perhaps that would solve the problem of God being cruel. I believe that the problem is the eternal nature of Hell. There have been hints that some limited punishment might be acceptable to Dan, but that eternal punishment is not. I also couldn't get him to agree that Hitler was deserving of eternal torment.
But it is an excellent point. It's one more situation of declaring something to be hyperbole, but not providing and sort or explanation to tell us what the real meaning is. It's as if simply saying "hyperbole" is sufficient.
Post a Comment