Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[Scorch It]

According to the Bible, Jesus' death paid for our sins so we wouldn't have to go to hell eternally. Logically we can state this as "Finite Sin --> Eternal Hell" and "Jesus' death --> Freedom from Sin". I argue against both statements, saying that justice would not (and could not) require infinite punishment for any sin, and that the suffering of an innocent being could never "sanctify" an individual were they to be guilty of such a crime crime. I will now lay down a few ideas I hold to be obviously true:

1. Humans are finite beings
2. Finite beings can never commit infinite crimes.
3. Humans cannot commit infinite crimes.
4. Justice requires comparable punishments for crimes. At the very least, a finite crime could never require an infinite punishment.
5. It is not just to punish a human infinitely.
6. Eternal Hell constitutes an infinite punishment.
7. It is not just to send a human to Hell eternally.
8. God is just.
9. God will not send a human to Hell eternally. Thus, finite sin does not lead to eternal hell. QED
10. It is unjust to allow one being to suffer for the crimes of another.
11. Jesus is a being.
12. It is unjust to allow Jesus to suffer for the crimes of another.
13. God would not allow Jesus to suffer for the crimes of another (based on 5 and 12)
14. Jesus' death can erase human sins if and only if God allows him to die for humans.
15. Jesus' death cannot erase human sins. Therefore, justice mandates that Jesus cannot die for our sins.

[jimwalton]

Biblically speaking, your argument fails at point #2, thereby negating the rest. Mark 3.29 reads, "But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin." This alerts us to the theological reality that finite humans can commit eternal sins. (But we also have to define "finite." The biblical definition, again, would say it is a definite beginning, but no end. Some may think "finite" is to be defined as "with a beginning and an end, but that is not a biblical concept.) The "infinite crime," in this case, is a never-ending blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It conforms to the definition of "having a set beginning, but no end." But we all know, even in the case of human justice, that though the infraction may be limited ("I committed manslaughter"), the consequences and possibility the guilt of that crime never end. The person is dead; the guilt for crime committed lasts. It's not even necessary that the sin keep repeating ("maybe I'm not guilty of everlasting blasphemy!"). The guilt of the action survives even if the action itself ceases. This is true in our courts, where sometimes in severe cases judges hand out three life sentences to the same person. It's weird, of course, but it makes the point: the guilt endures even though the act has ended.

In this case, a finite act by a finite person can be an eternal sin with eternal consequences. It may also be the case that the attitude of the finite person is a continuing one, and therefore the infraction is eternal, and so the eternal punishment just possibly fits the crime. An act is committed; that act passes into a state, and the state continues. It's not that eternal punishment is a measure of God's resentment against a finite sin that is so enormous that his resentment never subsides. Rather, God's judgment is the result of the effect of any sin, or the course of sin in creating a state that never comes to an end.

[Scorch It]

how does one blaspheme the holy spirit? also, the bible says elsewhere that all sins may be forgiven (acts 13:39, titus 2:13-14 1 john 1:9).
when I was a kid (I was a christian then) i got the urge to say "god is bad" one time and it really scared me, and I went around saying "god is good" because I thought I would go to hell if I accidentally said "god is bad"

Further, your argument does not completely debunk my first argument, and does not debunk the second argument at all. You still have to prove that all humans who will go to hell will commit at least one infinite sin, and that jesus death can wash away that sin (which is argument 2)

[jimwalton]

> how does one blaspheme the holy spirit?

It's a phrase that obviously must be interpreted, as all written communication must. I have seen it variously interpreted as:

1. The sin of never wanting to be forgiven.
2. Rejecting the ultimate revelation of God's will in Christ Jesus, meaning a total, malignant opposition to Jesus that twists all the evidence of his divine power into contrary evidence.
3. Continuing defiant hostility toward God.

> the bible says elsewhere that all sins may be forgiven

Mark 3.28, the verse before this one, also says that "all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven them." Then Jesus adds this qualifier. The sin that never ends is the sin that can never be forgiven.

> when I was a kid (I was a christian then) i got the urge to say "god is bad" one time and it really scared me, and I went around saying "god is good" because I thought I would go to hell if I accidentally said "god is bad"

Yeah, sorry you misunderstood. It's not a one-time act, but a life-long contempt.

> your argument does not completely debunk my first argument

It takes out 2, 3, & 4, which are the core of your argument. Without those, you don't have legs to stand on. But also consider this (continuing to speak to your first argument, and also to your comment that "You still have to prove that all humans who will go to hell will commit at least one infinite sin".

There are also many theories from thinking Christians that possibly hell is not eternal for everyone there, but there may be future opportunities for some to be reconciled to God after appropriate punishment and as they continue to make spiritual choices. Hell is a difficult doctrine to sort out. Without a doubt there are verses that talk about eternal punishment, but they don't necessarily include all of those who are separated from God. There are verses that talk about God reconciling all things to himself (Rom. 11.15; 2 Cor. 5.19; Col. 1.20), and so some theologians think that God will continue his work of reconciliation even into the afterlife, such that those who "serve their time" will at a later date be reconciled with God ("reconciliationism"). There is another position called "semi-restorationism" where, after appropriate punishment, those who desire a relationship with God will be partially restored, and those who do not, even after punishment, will opt to remain separated. So hell is eternal, but not necessarily eternal for everyone. While the Bible speaks about eternity, possibly only those who stay eternally defiant will be eternally punished. Some even believe in annihilation. It's hard to know. So it's not necessarily true that "all humans who will go to hell will commit at least one infinite sin."

There are also degrees of punishment in hell; it's not "One Fire Fits All." People can be punished worse or less based on their lives and what they deserve, meaning that hell doesn't necessarily mean eternal ("unjust") punishment, but it's very possible that the punishment will fit the crime. Those who are guilty of eternal sin will be eternally punished; those who are not will still be fairly punished for what they did do, and then that will end. So #6 falls and #10 falls.

I happen to be convinced hell is not literally fire, but the agony of true separation from God. I say that because fire doesn't have degrees of punishment, but hell does. Degrees of separation makes more sense to me than degrees of being burned. I believe hell is degrees of punishment, based on the sin (though not levels of hell, as in Dante. Ironically, though, even Dante said hell is an endless, hopeless conversation with oneself). Here's my proof:

- Mt. 11.22-24 – "more tolerable"
- Mt. 23.14 – "greater condemnation"
- Rev. 20.13 – "each in proportion to his works"
- Lk. 10.12 – "it will be more bearable for Sodom than for that town"
- Lk. 12.47-48 – beaten with few blows or more blows

My bottom line is this: Those who turn away from God will be separated from the life of God. Though we can't be sure about the form or duration of that separation, this we can be sure of: it will be a horrible experience, and God will be fair about the form and duration of it. If you reject God, you take your chances. Though a few of your points are true, all in all your argument falls apart upon biblical analysis.

[Freddy John]

> how does one blaspheme the holy spirit?
> It's a phrase that obviously must be interpreted, as all written communication must. I have seen it variously interpreted as:

1. The sin of never wanting to be forgiven.
2. Rejecting the ultimate revelation of God's will in Christ Jesus, meaning a total, malignant opposition to Jesus that twists all the evidence of his divine power into contrary evidence.
3. Continuing defiant hostility toward God.



You give a list of possibilities but omit the actual answer that is clear from reading the passages- why?! Blaspheming the holy spirit, at least according to the author of Mark, is attributing an act of the holy spirit to a demon.

[jimwalton]

Reason #2 covers attributing an act of the HS to a demon. In Mark 3.22, they blaspheme God (and Jesus, who is also God, and the Holy Spirit, who is also God) by attributing Jesus' works (and therefore the works of the HS, Luke 4.14, and the works of God, John 4.34; 10.25; 12.49) to demonic forces, twisting evidences of his divine poser and rejecting the ultimate revelation of God's will in Christ Jesus.

[J Lord]

What is the definition of a "infinite crime?" Because all of the elements that you say make up the sin of blasphemy against the holy spirit are things that a person could do temporarily and then change their mind about.

[jimwalton]

What I said was, "The 'infinite crime,' in this case, is a never-ending blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." Pertaining your question, the "never-ending" adjectival phrase would be the "infinite" part. As long as a person changes their mind, then they can be forgiven. The never-ending blasphemy against the HS is the sin of never wanting to be forgiven, and never ceasing the rejection of Jesus, and continuing in defiant hostility toward God.

[Scorch It]

First of all, what makes your definition of blasphemy of the holy spirit accurate? (henceforth, BatHS) Many other definitions of it are different from yours. The context of the passage implies that it IS a one-time act.

Your argument constitutes a rebuttal to 2 and 3, but not necessarily 4. Further, The versions of the bible I am familiar with do not call such blasphemy "infinite" or "eternal" but rather "unforgiveable".

In any case, you should be able to show that BatHS creates harm that justifies the punishment of eternal hell.

Further, your definition of BatTH is contradictory with the notion of free will. It implies that, once committed, the sinner cannot stop committing that crime. However, free will mandates that an action is only a crime if the sinner willfully continues.

I maintain that humans cannot require infinite punishment, because they have freewill and thus can repent and cease from any ongoing crimes. Thus, their crime can only extend from their moment of creation to their moment of repentance, and thus is finite in extent.

[jimwalton]

> what makes your definition of blasphemy of the holy spirit accurate?

BatHS is pretty much defined in the text for us: they were accusing Jesus of working for Satan, thereby calling good evil and denigrating God.

> The versions of the bible I am familiar with do not call such blasphemy "infinite" or "eternal" but rather "unforgivable".

In Mark 3.29, it does, as you say, call such blasphemy "unforgivable." And the "never" of "will never be forgiven" is in the emphatic position, to say this word "never" is being stressed. Then text continues on to say "he is guilty of an eternal sin." This textual reading is virtually certain, occurring in the main, oldest, and most reliable manuscripts, and in an abundance of manuscripts. Its reading is virtually certain.

> Further, your definition of BatTH is contradictory with the notion of free will. It implies that, once committed, the sinner cannot stop committing that crime. However, free will mandates that an action is only a crime if the sinner willfully continues.

No contradiction at all. What I said was, "The 'infinite crime,' in this case, is a never-ending blasphemy against the Holy Spirit." Pertaining your question, the "never-ending" adjectival phrase would be the "infinite" part. As long as a person changes their mind, then they can be forgiven. The never-ending blasphemy against the HS is the sin of never wanting to be forgiven, and never ceasing the rejection of Jesus, and continuing in defiant hostility toward God. Free will always but always allows a person to change their mind and stop committing the crime. It is the person who willfully continues their crime who perpetuates the blasphemy.