Infinite offense = Infinite punishment?

[Tocath]

Hey all! I've been lurking for a while reading posts in the background, but finally decided to enter the fray

First a quick intro before my question. I found Theos while looking around the web for resources on Universal Reconciliation. I'd always been a huge fan of Madeleine L'Engle, and she talks about universalism in much the same way that MacDonald does. So, I started investigating, bought and read Talbott's UR debate book and eventually found my way here. I'm not fully on board with UR, but after a lot of reading, I am convinced that Conditional Immortality has far more scriptural support than Eternal punishment.

My question is this: Does anyone know the origin of the argument that an infinite offense requires an infinite punishment? I'm finding that a lot of folks will bring up this argument, and I'd love to know who was the first to put it forth...

Thanks!

Tocath
(Josh)

[Suzana]

Hi Josh,
(& welcome to the forum)

Hopefully this might answer your question, from an excerpt from the book, The Fire That Consumes by Edward William Fudge (page 374):


“Anselm (Died 1117). Like Tertullian so many years earlier, Anselm argued for unending torment on the basis of philosophy and law. In his Cur Deus Homo (bk 1) and also his Proslogion (chs 8-11), this philosopher-theologian set forth his traditional case. He did not attempt to exegete Scripture but, rather defended the view he had received. Where Tertullian thought in terms of Latin law and justice, Anselm reasoned within the framework of medieval feudal society.
In that structure, punishment was determined not only by the offense committed but also by the relative worthiness of the offended party. The same act which the king might commit with impunity could bring a lesser noble a reprimand or even a sentence in jail. Committed by a serf, it might well mean instant death. Since God is worthy of infinite honor, Anselm reasoned, crime against Him (sin) deserves infinite punishment. But since man is a finite being, the only way he can pay an infinite penalty is to suffer for an infinite period of time. Therefore sinners must endure conscious torment forever.
It is immediately evident that Anselm does not base his strongest appeal on scriptural evidence….”

[steve7150]

My question is this: Does anyone know the origin of the argument that an infinite offense requires an infinite punishment? I'm finding that a lot of folks will bring up this argument, and I'd love to know who was the first to put it forth...





Hi welcome aboard! Good question since this expression is not in scripture and initially sounds like it makes some kind of sense except that in the OT when folks sinned against God they were typically just destroyed.
I would'nt be surprised if it has Calvinist origins.

[Homer]

Hi Josh,

Welcome to the forum!

I suspect the argument over "finite sin"/"infinite punishment" is an ancient one. It is, however, a very weak argument for universalism because it does not take into consideration that sins are "unbounded events", that is, events in time are infinite in their effects. This may not seem possible, but consider the sins of Hitler. He is responsible for the murder of millions. Those he put to death would doubtless have given birth to many more millions of people, and they in turn many millions more. These souls would have lived into eternity (or some of them if you are anihilationist) thus the effect of his sins is unending. People who would have existed will forever not exist. And the parents who had their children murdered by Hitler are forever deprived of grandchildren.

We also believe that Jesus still bears the scars of His crucifixion. Could the emotional scars of being treated with contempt in this life still be with us in the next? Who can say they will not? They were still with the martyrs in Revelation who cried out to God.

And we must also consider the cascading effects of sin. It is like a rock thrown into a pond, with ripples that spread to affect many others in countless ways. The idea of finite sin is a false premise.

[steve7150]

And we must also consider the cascading effects of sin. It is like a rock thrown into a pond, with ripples that spread to affect many others in countless ways. The idea of finite sin is a false premise.




That's a very astute observation Homer yet biblically speaking there are varying degrees of sin since in the OT there were varying degrees of punishment and even in Luke 13 Jesus did say some get beaten with few stripes and some with many.
Thus God reveals that justice demands that the punishment fits the crime , this is a fundamental part of his charactor.
God is not a one size fits all punishment God, he is more then capable of dispensing justice on a case by case basis.

[Tocath]

Hey all!

Suzana, Thanks much for suggesting Anselm as the culprit I'll need to dive in and read a bit more (once I clear all the other books off my plate...)

Homer, I wasn't looking use the equation as an argument for universalism... As I said, I tend towards the CI view. I agree with you: I don't believe that believers will simply forget pain that came as a result of sin. Rather, I think we will remember this life in the context of how Christ redeemed it, and it will be a cause for continuing joy and gratitude. I do have a problem with the idea that sin itself is infinite or eternal.

Instead, I was looking for the origin of a specific argument for Eternal Torment. I've seen people use "infinite sin = infinite punishment" in defense of eternal hell almost as if the equation were directly from scripture

I think the key part of Anselm's argument is "Since God is worthy of infinite honor, crime against Him (sin) deserves infinite punishment." It's a neat bit of human reasoning that would nicely wrap up the issue except that His ways are not our ways, and our concept of justice is not his. The kind of ultimate victory foretold in 1 Cor 15:28 is impossible if sin still exists (albeit in tortured quarantine).

Josh

[Danny]

Hi Josh,

Here are a few links you might find interesting:

http://wesleyanarminian.blogspot.com/20 ... ement.html

http://sharktacos.com/God/cross_intro.shtml

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_ ... tion_view)

-Danny

[Tocath]

Danny,

Thanks for the links! I'm reading through Christus Victor by Gustaf Aulen right now, but that second link appears to communicate the view simply in just a few pages.

Also, the origins of the word atonement in the first link are fascinating.

Thanks!

Josh