Wages of Sin (June 5th Show)

[Jason]

Steve, in this program you gave a brief defense of the annihilationist view by citing the numerous verses which clearly state the judgement/payment for sin is death. However, the annihilationist believes there will be a general resurrection of all people and that each unbeliever will be punished according to what he deserves before being finally extinguised in the second death. This seems to betray your argument that God would be unfair not to mention eternal torment (to Adam and Eve) when he said the penalty for sin is merely death. If annihilationists are correct, God should have said the penalty for sin is death, then some form of further punishment, then another death.

I kind of hold to a fourth view of the fate of unbelievers. This is the idea that just as believers are rewarded according to their deeds, so also unbelievers are given a lot in measure with their own deeds. For some, this could mean being ruled over in the new Creation but still being able to take part in it, while others might actually be handed extinction due to their level of wickedness. This would seem to align with the view of justice given to human authorities by God himself, which he called "good." Those in rebellion against God in the OT were given different fates, depending on the level of cimes commited. Some were beaten, some had to repay what they stole, and some were killed. Why should we think God's justice is radically different in the next age? It's plainly stated that each will be judged according to his works so why would the punishment (extinction in this case) be the same for those in rebellion?

[steve]

Hi Jason,

I can't see anything in your second paragraph that I would necessarily disagree with. It resembles my own tentative thinking on the subject.

When we turn to your concerns in the first paragraph, I don't think your objection would carry so much weight, if by "death" God meant "ultimate death", or even "the second death." The result would still be extinction. That people might suffer (and even die physically, resurrect and suffer some more punishment) prior to that ultimate death would not contradict the general warning.

If we would say that the final punishment for the sinner is physical death (which is not what most annihilationists say), this does not rule-out any quantity of suffering that a sinner may suffer in this life before experiencing the death penalty.

Likewise, if we say that the ultimate penalty for the sinner is "the second death," this would not rule out any amount of suffering—whether in this life or after the resurrection—to which a person might justly be subjected prior to that death. The only thing it would rule-out would be that anyone would deathlessly suffer forever and ever.

[darinhouston]

I kind of hold to a fourth view of the fate of unbelievers. This is the idea that just as believers are rewarded according to their deeds, so also unbelievers are given a lot in measure with their own deeds. For some, this could mean being ruled over in the new Creation but still being able to take part in it, while others might actually be handed extinction due to their level of wickedness. This would seem to align with the view of justice given to human authorities by God himself, which he called "good." Those in rebellion against God in the OT were given different fates, depending on the level of cimes commited. Some were beaten, some had to repay what they stole, and some were killed. Why should we think God's justice is radically different in the next age? It's plainly stated that each will be judged according to his works so why would the punishment (extinction in this case) be the same for those in rebellion?

Sort of a hybrid then between UR and CI ? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that's how it turns out. It perhaps solves the problem skeptics raise about "decent people" who seem to have live a spirit-led life but remain in agnosticism or atheism, and deals justly with true evil.

[Jason]

When we turn to your concerns in the first paragraph, I don't think your objection would carry so much weight, if by "death" God meant "ultimate death", or even "the second death." The result would still be extinction. That people might suffer (and even die physically, resurrect and suffer some more punishment) prior to that ultimate death would not contradict the general warning.

What I had in mind was the annihilationst view that many will suffer for perhaps even thousands of years in torment before experiencing the "second death." Granted, thousands of years and eternity are very different things, but I'd think both would carry a pretty heavy warning.

Sort of a hybrid then between UR and CI ? It wouldn't surprise me in the least if that's how it turns out. It perhaps solves the problem skeptics raise about "decent people" who seem to have live a spirit-led life but remain in agnosticism or atheism, and deals justly with true evil.

I'm certainly no authority on the subject and most of my proof texts would come from God's views of justice in this life, not necessarily the next life. I see no reason why God would change his standards except to say He might show more grace. I can't see him showing less grace.

[steve]

Hi Jason,

You wrote:

What I had in mind was the annihilationst view that many will suffer for perhaps even thousands of years in torment before experiencing the "second death."

Ever since I came to consider seriously the annihilationist option, I have doubted that anyone would ever really have to suffer for thousands of years. I can't imagine how such a long sentence could reasonably fit the crime. Jesus spoke of "few stripes" and of "many stripes." I don't see how a flogging that lasts thousands of years could fail to be excessive.