Tough Question # 3

[Sudsy]

What purpose do you think there is in ECT - Eternal Conscious Torment in hell fire when the sins committed here in a single lifetime of a few years is punished unendingly ?

If I understand Calvinism their reasoning is that God has already decided who He will save even before they are born and that God remains just and fair in creating persons he predestines to damnation because although God unilaterally works in the elect producing regeneration, God does not actively force the damned to sin. I have heard some Calvinists say that God reflects both His love and His wrath by saving some and ECT others. I suppose with that reasoning one could have as many children as they can and regardless of where they end up God is pleased and as I think some have put it, we will be pleased also with His decision.

Johnathan Edwards once preached that those in heaven could consciously "see" those in hell and rejoice ? Put this way Edwards says - "To see the majesty, and greatness, and terribleness of God, appearing in the destruction of his enemies, will cause the saints to rejoice; and when they shall see how great and terrible a being God is, how will they prize his favor! How will they rejoice that they are the objects of his love! How will they praise him the more joyfully, that he should choose them to be his children, and to live in the enjoyment of him!"

I have trouble with these views as I believe in a fair judgment and fair punishment and after that annihilation. I know scriptures have been used to support different views of hell and it's duration and I have my scriptural support also but I'm interested in how others here would answer the bolded question.

[RZehr]

Just a quick thought -

Whether something is "fair or just" is secondary to the question of "is it true?".
Because if it is true, then we just accept that Gods ways are higher than ours. And that if God is fair and just and perfect etc., then by extension everything He does is too. And if we disagree, then that means that our view of these things is either out of calibration with God, or else these things are just far above our understanding, or both.

What we should never do, is to assume that our opinions and understanding is complete, and try to make reality conform to us.

[MaxPC]

Just a quick thought -

Whether something is "fair or just" is secondary to the question of "is it true?".
Because if it is true, then we just accept that Gods ways are higher than ours. And that if God is fair and just and perfect etc., then by extension everything He does is too. And if we disagree, then that means that our view of these things is either out of calibration with God, or else these things are just far above our understanding, or both.

What we should never do, is to assume that our opinions and understanding is complete, and try to make reality conform to us.

Amen and amen.
1 Corinthians 13:12 For now we see in a mirror dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall understand fully, even as I have been fully understood.

[joshuabgood]

The argument usually is that finite sins against an infinite God can never be repaid...therefore an infinite deity had to "pay the penalty." If we reject that infinite ransom, we then suffer the infinite punishment. As we can never repay sins against an infinite God with a finite amount of suffering.

For various reasons, some folks don't find the above overly compelling.

[Sudsy]

The argument usually is that finite sins against an infinite God can never be repaid...therefore an infinite deity had to "pay the penalty." If we reject that infinite ransom, we then suffer the infinite punishment. As we can never repay sins against an infinite God with a finite amount of suffering.

For various reasons, some folks don't find the above overly compelling.

Yes, I think this article gives reasons justifying ECT - https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/46730

And speaking against annihilationism it says -

Annihilationism when it speaks about the judgment of sin, fails to recognize that sinners won't stop sinning in Hell; and their sins in Hell may even grow worse

I had not heard that argument before that one's continued sinning in hell merits ungoing punishment. I see this site takes a shot or two about annihilationism, so I will get me a coffee and read what else he has to say.

I have read the Anabaptist, Greg Boyd and his support for annihilationism who also has some complelling arguments.

[Coifi]

What purpose do you think there is in ECT - Eternal Conscious Torment in hell fire when the sins committed here in a single lifetime of a few years is punished unendingly ?

Not a Calvinist, but I do not believe in annihilationism or universalism...

I've found the moniker to be a particularly loaded name. We are talking about the age to come which, by definition, we have not arrived at yet. Do we know what "Eternal" would be like in the age to come? Would we experience time in the same way then as we do now in this age? What is consciousness like in the age to come? Do we even have a good definition of what it means to be conscious now? What is meant by torment? That those in hell feel pain? What does it mean to feel pain after the bodily resurrection? A lot of different things are going on here...to compare then to now is like comparing a human to an alien.

[Josh]

I interpret as if someone doesn’t choose Jesus in this life… how is Jesus going to force someone to choose him in the next?

The door of hell is locked from the inside.

[barnhart]

What purpose do you think there is in ECT - Eternal Conscious Torment in hell fire when the sins committed here in a single lifetime of a few years is punished unendingly ?

I think this a good example of things we don't need to know and should not argue about. If it formed an important part of doctrine, it would be clearer.

[Sudsy]

What purpose do you think there is in ECT - Eternal Conscious Torment in hell fire when the sins committed here in a single lifetime of a few years is punished unendingly ?

I think this a good example of things we don't need to know and should not argue about. If it formed an important part of doctrine, it would be clearer.

But some think OSAS is an important doctrine to believe or to reject. Others say immersion baptism is an important doctrine. Or still others say headcoverings and/or speaking in tongues are important doctrines. Etc, etc. Some believe these are not clear but others believe they are very clear.

I agree that it is not something to argue about but it has been an issue for some and has been a driver in how they live out their Christian life. My father, a hell fire street preacher, I doubt, believed that the sins committed in hell was what kept the punishment on-going but rather believed that eternal conscious torment in hell was what the scriptures taught whether he thought it to be fair or not. In other words, God's ways are above our ways and His thoughts above ours and some things we should just believe and not question.

Yet others who say they believe in ECT in hell, show little active involvement in doing whatever they can to rescue others from such a place. So it would seem to me their kind of belief is not one that produces actions and so is questionable that it is a heart belief. There are those who claim to be born again and yet their actions also are suspect to other believers by their lives. My own claim being one of them.

I find it interesting how some have regarded this question as one that has an explanation and how they go about using scriptures to support their understandings. I am reviewing that link I gave and how this writer goes about justifying in his mind, using scriptures, why a question such as this has a scriptural answer. I don't agree with various things in how this writer uses scriptures and think Greg Boyd, for one, makes some good offsetting considerations also using scriptures.

At this point in my life, with were I am at with my understandings of God and His ways, I am more pursuaded that an ultimate annihilation of the wicked fits best. And I know that it goes against the grain of the more traditional stated view on hell, sometimes used to keep people afraid of God as the ultimate torturer for their sinning.

I believe as one scripture says that we now 'see through a glass darkly' and 'only know in part' and that there will continue to be many areas of Christianity where Christians do not understand the scriptures in the same way but we also are told to study them and seek to know God better through them. And our understandings of God and His ways will affect how we live.

Perhaps if we were to attempt to 'argue' more in the sense of what we are 'holding to' or 'contending about' without getting into 'quarreling' or 'squabbling' or 'locking horns' over, we could share our different understandings at times in a more considerate and loving way. I agree the latter form of arguing we should try to avoid.