finite SINNING punished with INFINITE torture?

Herein lies your problem--bad hermeneutics.
A parable is but an illustration. It used to illustrate truth that is already taught elsewhere; it is never used to teach doctrine; only to illustrate the doctrine being taught. There is a difference and it is important to understand that difference. One may NOT teach doctrine solely from an illustration. That is a characteristic of cults. Once you start teaching doctrine from cults you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say. Parables can teach anything that you want the parable to teach. Jesus never intended it to be that way. Most parables are intended to teach one essential point, and that is all.
For you to back up your doctrinal beliefs simply through references from parables shows the weakness of your position.

 

I understand your objections, but please note that it's been a while since I read Packer's work so I may be doing him a disservice in trying to quote him. I should say that Packer is no universalist but he is a predestinarian Calvinist and presumably therefore believes in limited atonement; I'm not sure howevere that that precludes a belief in infinite satisfaction - I would suggest the circle is squared by there being infinite satisfaction applied in a limited manner (ie: to a limited number of people), either through election (Calvinism) or free choice (Arminianism).

Does that make sense?

[ETA - have now found Packer's article here, so judge for yourself!]

 

BR:

"But as Lev 16 points out -the atonement PROCESS must INCLUDE the high priestly work of Christ as we SEE HIM DOING in Heb 8-10."

GE:

Lev 16 points out the atoneMENT, includED, the High Priestly work of Christ; as in Heb 8-10 the high priest after having sacrificed, had to PRESENT the LIFE ("in the blood") of the sacrifice, INSIDE the sanctuary. So Christ, by "a better offering", namely, by the "PRESENTING", of His "INDESTRUCTABLE LIFE", "FINISHED atonement ... ON THAT DAY".

The atonement 'process', lasted no longer than "that day" because God's atonement is one, "once for all", WHOLE.

 

Not only a 'completed SACRIFICE' (SDA), but a completed ATONEMENT (Lv16) -- an atonement completed by the "OFFERING" or "PRESENTING", "BEFORE THE LORD", of the life-blood of the sacrifice, inside the sanctuary.

You described it, dear BobRyan, as, Christ entering Christ. A certain Calvinist (Klaas Schilder) described it as Christ entering into full fellowship of the Trinity. Through resurrection from the dead, of course.

It's a matter of the difference between Romish heresy and the sound doctrine of Protestantism.

 

Matt Black:

"... therefore ... limited atonement; I'm not sure howevere that that precludes a belief in infinite satisfaction - I would suggest the circle is squared by there being infinite satisfaction applied in a limited manner (ie: to a limited number of people), either through election (Calvinism) or free choice (Arminianism)."

GE:

I think this is good! Depending however on which 'manner' is the true one.

 

The one 'manner' is God's; the other is man's. So 'make you choice'.

 

According to the pope's church, the atonement 'process' must go on, so they sacrifice 'Jesus' every day (mass). The blood of their 'atonement' never stops flowing; look at their images and even some of their live saints. Their atonement never gets finished -- look at their bare crosses and empty tomb. You'll never see Christ in His Glory of resurrection --- because it is the invisible intangible, spiritual reality of the LIVING and bodily RISEN, Christ.

 

Since there is no such concept taught in the Bible, obviously that is not the point. That is the danger of trying to get doctrine from parables. It doesn't work. The Bible teaches no such concept. Jesus was teaching the importance of forgiveness. When God forgives he forgives once for all time. One's sins are cast behind his back never to be remembered again. Your interpretation of the parable goes against everything else in the Bible that is taught about forgiveness. It is evident that your interpretation is wrong. You can't teach doctrine from a parable. A parable can only illustrate doctrine that has only previously been taugth. Thus your doctrine about "forgivenss revoked" is clearly unscriptural.

Scripture taken out of context is a pretext to become your proof-text to teach your false doctrine. You say it is not a parable. You are clearly wrong and have not read the context.

Luke 12:41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
--He is explaining the parable to his disciples.
Ye do err not knowing the Scriptures neither the power of God.

You couldn't say it better. Now go and apply it to yourself.

 

You quote the very Scripture that you cannot understand. Unbelievable.

Luke 12:39 And this know, that if the goodman of the house had known what hour the thief would come, he would have watched, and not have suffered his house to be broken through.
--This is part of the parable that he had just referred to.

Luke 12:41 Then Peter said unto him, Lord, speakest thou this parable unto us, or even to all?
--Peter asks the Lord about this parable and for an explanation.
The following verses are an explanation of the above parable. Thus verses 44 and 45 have directly to do with the parable that Jesus just gave. Don't take Scripture out of context.

Luke 12:42 And the Lord said, Who then is that faithful and wise steward, whom his lord shall make ruler over his household, to give them their portion of meat in due season?
--Jesus goes on with the explanation of a parable. He speaks of a wise steward. He is speaking in a parable. This is not historical. It is a parable, an illustration.

Luke 12:44 Of a truth I say unto you, that he will make him ruler over all that he hath.
--He continues on with his parable. Who is he? Who will make who ruler? This is a parable, not history. To say otherwise is a complete distortion of God's Word.

 

What is simply amazing to me about this whole issue, (besides BR not answering a simple straight forward question, i.e. Is sin infinite in nature or finite in nature?) is the whole issue related to Matt. 18 and Luke 12. BR tries to utilize these passages to substantiate his claim that Scripture does not teach eternal punishment of the sinner. Why would he utilize these passages for representing any truth whatsoever concerning the wicked after death?? Does he not believe in the annihilation of the wicked, not the punishment of them?……..unless of course he is now going to tell us God is going to, in his favorite expression, ‘torture’ the wicked before He annihilates them.

Re 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

 

Here is some fodder for the list. Dake’s states the following. “Eternal conscious punishment as an eternal monument of God’s wrath on sin so that eternal generations will know that sin does not pay. (Isa 66:22-24, Rev. 14: 9-11; 19:20; 20:10-15; Mt 5:22-30; 10:28; 13:42; 50; 18:9; 23:15, 33; 24 ;51 ; 25:30, 41, 46 ; Mk. 9:43-47; Lk. 12:5; Heb. 6: 2; 10: 26-31

One that I find most revealing is the following. Lu 12:4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.
5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which AFTER he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

 

"I have come," he said, while he was still on the earth 2,000 years ago speaking to his disciples--"to cast fire upon the earth," a specific figurative phrase relating to that time only, while he was on the earth. He was speaking to his disciples. Again it is application from a parable which you are trying to make a doctrine out of. That is unacceptable hermeneutics.

"I am come." What would be the result of his coming--contention, strife, enmitiy, husband against wife, brother against sister, son agaisnt father, etc.
He didn't come purposely to cause it, but it would be an invariable consequence of his coming. I have come to cast fire upon the earth.
In this sense he wishes that it were already kindled. It would separate the sheep from the goats so to speak (not referring to the parable), or the wheat from the chaff.

"For everyone who has been given much, much will be required." Put it into context. Paul did when he said:
"All who live Godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution."
This is not speaking of annihiliation of the wicked (a wicked and unbiblical doctrine in and of itself). See how you have to use a parable and pull scripture out of context to make up doctrines.
Nor is it even speaking of eternal punishment at all.
Ye do err not knowing the scriptures, neither the power of God.

 

This is the main question isn't it? One that Bob Ryan keeps avoiding.
Is sin finite or infinite in nature?

 

I also believe that the Scriptures do not teach eternal conscious torment of the lost. I believe that the lost are annihilated as the result of being cast into the lake of fire. Now I do not know what Bob believes about the process of annihilation. Hoewever, I believe that the lost experience punishment in the very process of annihilation - they are indeed punished. So there is no inconsistency here.

 

Is this text from Luke supposed to be an item of evi/dence to the effect that the lost suffer never-ending conscious torment

It is not, precisely because the text harmonizes perfectly with the perspective that hell destroys the person cast into it, and does not preserve them forever. Being cast into a lake of fire and experiencing the process of being burnt away to nothing is not a walk in the park - it is something to be feared indeed.

This text (as an item unto itself) works with both the eternal torment view and the annihilation view. On the whole, I think that Scripture rather clearly teaches that the lost are indeed ultimately annihilated. I think that the eternal tormet view gains some of its appeal through view that man is "dualistic" - a view that I think is not supported by the Scriptures, but is rather informed by the Greek influence on Western culture.