When I medidate on the Passion of Christ, I end up falling into the same doubts about the atonement, which I want to ask. The Catholic Church denies the penal substitutionary atonement, i.e. the notion Jesus presented himself before the Father so that He may be punished in our behalf. Instead, to atone for an offense is to offer to the offended something that he love equally or even more than he hated the offense, and so, because sin is an offense to God, the Church teaches that the sacrifice of Christ to the Father is this offering on our behalf, which, in virtue of Christ being the Son of God, is more pleasing to the Father than the whole collective of sin of human kind. Furthermore, the suffering, crucifixion and death of our Lord were meritorious of all grace to us, this making sense of the seven sacraments, the sacramentals and the spiritual authority of binding and losing of the Church. **My question:** I admit that my doubts, and thus my question, is half driven by emotions. My doubt is this: "Sacrifice" in more general therms can just mean offering for the sake of the one to whom we offer, e.g. I can offer to God my time in prayer and meditation, or my intellect in faith, or my will in obedience, for the sake that He is God, is the ultimate object of my desire. Then why did it needed for Christ sacrifice be in the sense of given His life to suffer and die on the cross, and not just an offering of Himself in this less bloodsheded way? I know that God could save us in any other way for Her is omnipotent, and that He choosed the cross because He thought of it as the fittest way. However, on this I reach another face of my doubt, i.e. when Christ was on the Getsemani He said: > Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me, but not as I will but as You will. Implying that His death on the cross was of the will of the Father. So, how then the Father pleases in the sacrifice of His Son that He wills? For, when I imagine my son sacrificing for the sake of another, I truly understand and can't help but to love my son for it, but not as my son sacrificing himself for the sake of my will. Again, this is half driven feelings, but these often get in the way of my spiritual life so I thought of getting rid of these. I appreciate any comment, and God bless.

The 1917 Code of Canon Law can. 2214 §1 states: >The Church has the native and proper right, independent of any human authority, to coerce those offenders subject to her with both spiritual and temporal penalties. This says "The Church", but §2 goes on to specify "Bishops and other Ordinaries". A bishop, when consecrated, is given the power to teach, govern, and sanctify those in his diocese; but what authority does a simple parish priest have over his parishioners? In other words, what can a parish priest command or forbid his parishioners to do? Can he coerce his parishioners with punishments, or is this power only reserved to bishops?

Christians across denominations appear to believe the snake who tempted Eve in Eden was actually Satan. If the being who tempted Eve was actually Satan, why were snakes cursed to crawl on their bellies and eat dust for all time? Do Christians believe God knew the snake was actually Satan? Why do Christians believe snakes have moral culpability for what Satan did?

John Stott argued against the eternal punishment of unbelievers whereas J I Packer argued for the view that Jesus Christ warned of the eternal punishment of those who reject himself and his gospel. What is the current view of Reformed Baptist Protestantism on this matter ?

How could a loving and just God condemn people to eternal conscious torment, a punishment that seems disproportionate to any finite sins committed in a limited human lifetime? If God desires all to be saved, why would He create souls knowing they would end up suffering forever, and why make salvation dependent on beliefs that many people never have a fair chance to accept? How can eternal damnation be reconciled with perfect divine justice when humans have such limited knowledge, varied cultural contexts, and finite lifespans to make the right choices? What kind of loving parent would allow their children to suffer eternally when they have the power to save them, and how could any finite sins warrant infinite punishment?

In referring to opponents of Penal Substitution theory , I'm referring specifically to those who view it as a ***false*** view of the Atonement, not merely that it is incomplete (*eg* those who hold to alternative theories of Atonement may assert their theories are more holistic, but will not necessarily deny that penal substitution is a contributing element within them). Consider: > ... the Lord will not leave the guilty unpunished. - Nahum 1:3b NIV > Acquitting the guilty and condemning the innocent— the Lord detests them both. - <a href="/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.biblegateway.com%2Fpassage%2F%3Fsearch%3Dprov%252017%253A15%26version%3DNIV" class="external-link" target="_blank" rel="nofollow noopener">Proverbs 17:15 NIV <i class="fas fa-external-link-alt fa-xs"></i></a> > Have nothing to do with a false charge and do not put an innocent or honest person to death, for I will not acquit the guilty. - Exodus 23:7 NIV If Christ doesn't bear the penalty or punishment for our sins by taking our guilt upon himself, where does the condemnation and punishment go? What is the specific mechanism by which, a sinner can be saved from their sins without making nonsense or lies of the preceding declarations?

My understanding is that the concept of Hell can have multiple interpretations. Some see it as a temporary purgatorial state or as a state of separation from god. My question focuses on Christian beliefs where Hell is characterized as a place of eternal conscious torment. Do Christians holding such beliefs see the idea of infinite torment in response to finite sin as generally compatible with that of a loving, just, or benevolent creator? Is there a consensus on how to reflect on this issue? What bothers me about the idea of eternal punishment is that it would actually be better for a person to die as soon as they are baptized, since that would drastically reduce the possibility of being sentenced to Hell. The person might end up in Heaven anyway, but getting a few comparatively fleeting conscious moments in exchange for a higher risk of infinite pain looks to be an insanely poor deal. (For the sake of argument, we may ignore the denominations which believe that damnation is pre-determined)

Revelation 20:10 depicts hell in the following manner (NKJV, emphasis mine): > The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be **tormented day and night forever and ever**. Also, while it doesn't directly say the torment is eternal, Revelation 14:11 comes close as well (NKJV, emphasis mine): > And the smoke of their **torment** ascends **forever and ever**; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name. Aside from these two verses in Revelation, do any other Books of the Bible depict eternal torment, or is the symbolic Book of Revelation the only source for eternal torment? I'm not looking for verses that discuss eternal "punishment" (which is vaguer) or verses that speak of just "torment" without saying such is forever/eternal. Rather, I'm looking specifically for verses that depict torment/torture as being eternal/forever.

A recent question, [How do believers in hell respond to the argument "What finite crime deserves an infinite punishment?"?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/101213/how-do-believers-in-hell-respond-to-the-argument-what-finite-crime-deserves-an) leads to a more fundamental question: **How do penance or punishment, as opposed to repentance or destruction, make the universe a better place?**. We know that God has a purpose for everything he does: > **Exodus 9:18** But indeed for this purpose I have raised you up, that I may show My power in you, and that My name may be declared in all the earth. > > **Job 42:2** “I know that You can do everything, And that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. > > **Ecclesiastes 3:1** To everything there is a season, A time for every purpose under heaven: > > **Ecclesiastes 3:17** I said in my heart, “God shall judge the righteous and the wicked, For there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.” > > **Isaiah 14:24** The LORD of hosts has sworn, saying, “Surely, as I have thought, so it shall come to pass, And as I have purposed, so it shall stand: > > **Isaiah 14:27** For the LORD of hosts has purposed, And who will annul it? His hand is stretched out, And who will turn it back?” > > **John 12:27** “Now My soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save Me from this hour'? But for this purpose I came to this hour. > > **Romans 8:28** And we know that all things work together for good to those who love God, to those who are the called according to His purpose. > > **Galatians 3:19** What purpose then does the law serve? … > > **Ephesians 1:11** In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, > > **Revelation 17:17** “For God has put it into their hearts to fulfill His purpose, … We know that God is a god of love and forgiveness: > **Zephaniah 3:17** The LORD your God in your midst, The Mighty One, will save; He will rejoice over you with gladness, He will quiet you with His love, He will rejoice over you with singing.” > > **John 3:16** “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life. > > **Acts 5:31** “Him God has exalted to His right hand to be Prince and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins. > > **Romans 5:8** But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. > > **Ephesians 2:4** But God, who is rich in mercy, because of His great love with which He loved us, > > **Colossians 2:13** And you, being dead in your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He has made alive together with Him, having forgiven you all trespasses, > > **1 John 4:8** He who does not love does not know God, for God is love. > > **1 John 4:10** In this is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins. The simple view presented in the Bible is that eventually all mankind will either: - Repent, accept God's way of life, and receive eternal life (the vast majority). - Reject God and be permanently destroyed (a small number of incorrigible). > **1 Timothy 2:3–4** For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. > > **Revelation 20:15** And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. But many denominations believe that: - After repentance, one still needs to do penance (and Catholics believe in additional purgatory after death). - If one does not accept God, one will have an eternal life of perpetually experiencing punishment, with no hope of its ever ending. The words "penalty" and "retribution" do not appear in the Bible (KJV). In the New Testament, "vengeance" appears only once, and "justice" not at all. But "love" appears over 500 times in the Bible. And "forgive" appears more than 50 times in each of the Old and New Testaments. Given that God's message is one of love and forgiveness, not of vengeance and punishment, what do those that believe in punishment say is **God's purpose** in choosing to make people suffer after death (i.e. what good will result from it)? ### Note: **I'm not asking why God punishes sinners. I'm not asking why God permanently destroys incorrigible unrepentant sinners. I'm asking why, rather than extermination, some denominations teach that God will perpetually torture these sinners; what purpose do these denominations think this will serve?**

One of the early collections of Rabbinic Law and Doctrine is contained in the Babylon Talmudic. I presume it’s fairly safe to say that it is a good source to indicate what the Rabbis at the time of Christ may have been thinking. Of course Rabbinic thinking is considered irrelevant by Christians with respect to what is true when not in-line with scripture. However from the standpoint of understanding the context of the gospels it has some value. This makes the reference below, from it to Dan 12:2, describing the eternal blessing of the resurrected, as well as the eternal contempt of the wicked also resurrected, as opposed to an odd theory of a temporal punishment for some not that wicked and not that good. This third class seems to be an invention of them outside of the scripture but does make the conclusion of the ‘non-temporal’ nature of the wicked souls subjection to contempt iron clad. Are there any references or parables of Christ in the gospels that indicate a familiarity with the Rabbinic view of the dual resurrection of both the wicked and the righteous? Is there anything rejected or accepted in them by the Lord? Talmudic Tractate Rosh haShanah > It is taught in a baraita: Beit Shammai say: There will be three > groups of people on the great Day of Judgment at the end of days: One > of wholly righteous people, one of wholly wicked people, and one of > middling people. Wholly righteous people will immediately be written > and sealed for eternal life. Wholly wicked people will immediately be > written and sealed for Gehenna, as it is stated: “And many of those > who sleep in the dust of the earth shall wake, some to eternal life > and some to shame and everlasting contempt” (Daniel 12:2). Middling > people will descend to Gehenna to be cleansed and to achieve atonement > for their sins Daniel 12:2 ESV > 2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to **everlasting life**, and some to shame and **everlasting contempt**

According to Catholicism, is divine chastisement due especially to the sins of priests?

This is a huge question. Do let me know if its immensity makes it off-topic for this site. I will start out my question with a quote from Schopenhauer: > *A man can do what he wills, but not will what he wills.* *The Basic Argument* logically proves how *free will* defined as *will over one's will* is logically impossible due to the infinite regress it entails. If we have this definition of free will, and we exercised will to shape our will, then this meta-will must also have been shaped by our meta-meta-will, and so on. So, if one wants to be logical, this sense of *free will* must be abandoned. What we are left with then is the definition of free will implicit in Schopenhauer's quote; *free will* is the ability to do what you want. That's not as clear-cut as it sounds like, as there are many additional details that needs hashing out. However, regardless of those details, we are left with the very counter-intuitive idea of a supposedly benevolent being punishing us for things that are, **ultimately**, beyond our will. What we want at any given moment is determined by who we are and our environment (and the randomness inherent in both of those). We do not have ultimate control over these things. If I could create a sentient, conscious robot that is programmed to want to destroy things around it, and it is given free reign to do so, then it has free will, yet to punish it for being destructive would be ridiculous. It chose to, but it didn't choose to choose to. So, if we do not will what we will, why does God punish us for our will?

I recently asked a [question](https://hermeneutics.stackexchange.com/questions/59617/where-their-worm-does-not-die-and-the-fire-is-not-quenched-is-jesus-des) on the hermeneutics site with the intention of letting people share their exegetical takes on the words of Jesus found in Mark 9:47-49, where he said: > 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes **to be thrown into hell**, 48 **‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’** 49 For everyone will be salted with fire. [ESV] As I imagined would be the case, the topic turned out to be quite controversial: some people understand Jesus' description to be literal and others to be figurative. I would like to know if this controversy also existed in the early days of the church. What were the early church's views regarding the eternal fate of the damned? Did early Christians believe in a literal hell of fire to which the damned would be cast to receive the eternal punishment for their sins?

> "**An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment > due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven**, which the faithful > Christian who is duly disposed gains under certain prescribed > conditions through the action of the Church which, as the minister of > redemption, dispenses and applies with authority the treasury of the > satisfactions of Christ and the saints." (CCC 1471) Please correct me if I'm wrong but as I understand it, temporal punishment is the consequence of one's sin. However, it is said that indulgence can remit temporal punishment.How does indulgence remit temporal punishment? I'll give two scenarios to work on the question: **Scenario # 1** *David was forgiven his adultery with Bathsheba, but still he had to endure the pain of seeing the child die.* It is clear that David payed the penalty of temporal punishment. There is no indulgence in this case. **Scenario # 2** *Nicolas was forgiven of his promiscuous behavior, but still he had to endure the consequence of his sin which is HIV.* In this scenario, how does indulgence remit the temporal punishment? ----------

Does anyone else believe that our natural deaths are not the punishment for sin? Id always thought it odd that if our natural deaths were the punishment for sin, then why would God raise everyone for judgment Hebs 9:27 resulting in some dying again? Rev 20:6,13-15. Especially as we're told that God takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked, Ezekiel 18:23,32. Maybe Adam and Eve were created mortal? It's been suggested that Adam and Eve did not receive the immediate punishment for their sin ("in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die") because God killed an animal/animals instead, and covered them with the skins to show that their sin had been 'covered'. So according to this idea, their nature did not fall but remained the same. However the thing that did change was their relationship with God and from then on the Devil was their master, as they had chosen him over God - and he has had sway as "the ruler of this world" (John 12:31; 16:11) ever since. It is true I believe, that the Bible does not say that Adam and Eves nature 'fell', or refer to human nature as having 'fallen'. I could say more. But I'd like to hear thought through comments on what I've already said. I'm no longer certain of what I believe, myself! I'm looking for answers to consider.

We read at 1 Kings 11:1-13 how King Solomon fell into disgrace and was punished by the Lord : > King Solomon loved many foreign women along with the daughter of Pharaoh.....and his wives turned away his heart. For when Solomon was old, his wives turned away his heart after other gods; and his heart was not true to the Lord his God, as was the heart of his father David. .... So Solomon did what was evil in the sight of the Lord, and did not completely follow the Lord, as his father David had done. ... > > Then the Lord was angry with Solomon, because his heart had turned away from the Lord, the God of Israel, who had appeared to him twice, and had commanded him concerning this matter, that he should not follow other gods; but he did not observe what the Lord commanded. Therefore the Lord said to Solomon, “Since this has been your mind and you have not kept my covenant and my statutes that I have commanded you, I will surely tear the kingdom from you and give it to your servant. Yet for the sake of your father David I will not do it in your lifetime; I will tear it out of the hand of your son. I will not, however, tear away the entire kingdom; I will give one tribe to your son, for the sake of my servant David and for the sake of Jerusalem, which I have chosen. We see God giving an earthly punishment to Solomon for his infidelity. Verses 41-43 which narrate his death do not say whether he died repentant, or not. My question therefore is: **According to Catholic Church, did King Solomon find grace with God after his death?**

In this answer user Mike made the following statement: > For the curse they put upon themselves was later brought to pass in > the actual **destruction of their nation** which occurred in 70 A.D. Their > **homeless position on the earth** did not end **until 1948** making the > **punishment** so very great. This possibly also includes the Holocaust (although not mentioned by name) because it directly resulted from the "homeless" position and happened before 1948. Thus my question is as follows: What Christian groups consider the destruction of the Jewish nation in 70 AD, the persecutions of the Jews due to their homeless position until the creation of Israel, discrimination of the Jews in Europe, the pogroms in Imperial Russia, the Holocaust and other misfortunes the Jews suffered from Christians a punishment of God for killing Jesus Christ?

In Acts 4:32-5:11 , Ananias dies when Peter asks him why he has held some of the proceeds of the sale of his property back from the communal pot. However, it is not made clear that he promised to give them all the money in the first place. Is this simply implied by the later lie of Sapphira who claims that this was the whole price? Is there anything illuminating from tradition or external Biblical sources? Should this passage be interpretted entirely differently? So, why did Ananias die?

Exodus 20:5 (NASB) says, > You shall not worship [idols] or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, But Ezekiel 18:20 (NASB) says > The person who sins will die. The son will not bear the punishment for the father’s iniquity, nor will the father bear the punishment for the son’s iniquity; the righteousness of the righteous will be upon himself, and the wickedness of the wicked will be upon himself. How are these two passages reconciled?

> **[2 Kings 2:23-24 (KJV)](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2+Kings+2%3A23-24&version=KJV)**
> 23 And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going > up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and > mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald > head. 24 And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in > the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the > wood, and tare forty and two children of them. What do these verses mean? What was the purpose of this? The only reason I can think of is to teach the severity of mocking God's anointed.