Ruth Bader Ginsburg Justifying Sodomite Marriage … McAtee Analyzing Ginsbur

“[Same-sex couples] wouldn’t be asking for this relief if the law of marriage was what it was a millennium ago. I mean, it wasn’t possible. Same-sex unions would not have opted into the pattern of marriage, which was a relationship, a dominant and a subordinate relationship. Yes, it was marriage between a man and a woman, but the man decided where the couple would be domiciled; it was her obligation to follow him.

There was a change in the institution of marriage to make it egalitarian when it wasn’t egalitarian. And same-sex unions wouldn’t — wouldn’t fit into what marriage was once.”

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Here we find this the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG), using a mere five sentences to explain, in oral arguments yesterday, her opinion, as to exactly why marriage was long understood to be incompatible with homosexuality.

We should note here,

1.) If we accept her tacit presuppositions the Luciferian Ginsburg (LG) is right. If one posits an egalitarian (vis-a- vis Patriarchal) foundation for Marriage then sodomite “marriage” makes perfect sense. This reminds us that the contest here must be waged at the presuppositional level. This debate is not primarily about sodomite “marriage.” This debate is about what worldview sodomite “marriage” can exist in in order to be seen as rational.

2.) In order to tease #1 above out it is necessary to observe that LG explicitly begins with the premise that marriage is a man made institution dictated by social and political circumstances. She argues that marriage once operated one way but men changed the way it operated and now, because this man controlled institution changed to become egalitarian, it can now change to become non gender specific.

Of course the problem here is that Christians do not agree that marriage is a man made institution. Marriage, because it is God ordained and defined, cannot be changed in its definition, like a wax nose, in order to satisfy the most current wandering lust of modern Luciferians. Unless we challenge sodomite “marriage” thinking at the presuppositional level of “who gets to define ‘marriage’ sodomite “marriage” will become legal.

3.) #1 and #2 together remind us that this decision is all about religion in the public square. It reminds us that it is not possible to separate Church and State. If SCOTUS requires the legality of sodomite “marriage” in all 50 states it will be due to the religious presupposition that man, playing God, can redefine words and create fiat meaning at the bang of a gavel. Such a decision would provide clear linkage proving that Church and State are never segregated. Conversely, if SCOTUS rules that the meaning of marriage is static and unchangeable that also will be due to some a-priori, (even if left un-articulated in the decision) religious presupposition.

4.) Note how clever LG is when she uses the language of “a millennium ago.”   She is trying to make it sound as if 1000 years ago marriage was one way but now, being so much smarter, marriage is another way for us moderns. However, the fact of the matter is that all this change has happened not over the course of a millennium ago but over the course of just a few decades. Indeed, when LG was married in 1956 the marriage laws then were far closer to a millennium ago then to what she envisions marriage transforming into.

5.) LG uses the term “egalitarian”, but imports her leftist meaning into it. She was talking about old “coverture” laws that provided no property rights to women. She thinks the very nature of man/woman is one of *improper* subordination. We can argue about whether the change ditching coverture law was good/bad/indifferent, but that change occurred in the context of man/woman as fundamental foundation of the relationship. What we are dealing with today is altogether different. It is one thing to tinker around the fringes of marriage amending coverture laws. It is quite another to allow the fringe element of society to redefine marriage.

6.) Note LG rightly defines what marriage once was which she is seeking to change. She is entirely accurate when she describe that marriage used to be defined as a dominant-subordinate relationship between the husband and wife. This is exactly how God’s word describes marriage (Eph. 5). However has the words “dominant” and “subordinate” have been so vilified even Christians cringe when they think of marriage like God defines it.

7.) Allow me to say again that as long as the Left’s presuppositions hold sway their conclusion (“sodomite marriage”) will be impossible to stop. LG’s beginning point (Man as the definer of what marriage is and means) her argumentation used to prove that beginning point, and her ending point arrived at (sodomites should be allowed to “marry,”) is all bound up together. 

Watching The Cultural Gatekeepers Go Mad

The defenders of homosexual marriage continue to equate it with interracial marriage.

Here is a blurb from an exchange between Justice Scalia and Ted Olson:

JUSTICE SCALIA: I’m curious, when—when did — when did it become unconstitutional to exclude homosexual couples from marriage? 1791? 1868, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted? Sometimes — some time after Baker, where we said it didn’t even raise a substantial Federal question? When — when — when did the law become this?

MR. OLSON: When — may I answer this in the form of a rhetorical question? When did it become unconstitutional to prohibit interracial marriages? When did it become unconstitutional to assign children to separate schools.

JUSTICE SCALIA: It’s an easy question, I think, for that one. At — at the time that the Equal Protection Clause was adopted. That’s absolutely true. But don’t give me a question to my question. When do you think it became unconstitutional? Has it always been unconstitutional? . . .

MR. OLSON: It was constitutional when we as a culture determined that sexual orientation is a characteristic of individuals that they cannot control, and that that -­

JUSTICE SCALIA: I see. When did that happen? When did that happen?

MR. OLSON: There’s no specific date in time. This is an evolutionary cycle.

1.) Inasmuch as Scalia agrees concerning the evolution of interracial marriage from illegality to legality I’m not sure how Scalia can disagree that social evolution continues so as to include sodomite marriage. I mean, if the 14th amendment made a illegality a legality why can it not be determined that the 14th amendment also allows for the next step forward in the evolutionary cycle?

2.) Note that Olson’s invoking of the “evolutionary cycle” as a grounds for ever changing law reminds us that, it is the case now in the West, that law has no stable meaning. Law is no longer a transcendent category that is to be only recognized but never invented. This admission by Olson is a explicit embrace of the idea that we are ruled by men and not by laws.

3.) In the area of Law men like Christopher Columbus Langdell, Roscoe Pound, Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and Benjamin Cardozo moved the discipline of law away from its Biblical moorings evinced in Puritan Commonwealth documents like “Abstract of the Laws of New England,” towards standards that evinced a humanistic, evolutionary, naturalistic and Statist paradigm. In the late 1800’s Langdell did yeoman’s work moving law training away from a century of Lawyers in America concentrating on what the Constitution said to Darwinian inspired notions of where the law was perceived to be moving (case law training). By Langdell’s work the Constitution came to be seen to be evolving under the guidance of an imperial judiciary.

4.) With the law ever moving in a “evolutionary cycle” this means that yesterday’s criminals are tomorrow’s innovators in the law. In this worldview criminals are only those who are now where the rest of society will one day be.  Criminals are the moral and legal harbingers of the next evolutionary cycle in the law.

In another exchange we hear Justice Roberts,

“Counsel, I’m not sure it’s necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can’t. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?”

To which we would answer,

Your Honor, it is only sexual discrimination if you think the definition of Marriage as between one man and one woman is itself discriminatory.  But, I would add, your Honor, that should we conclude that Marriage is discriminatory because it allows only for one man and one woman, we have needs likewise conclude that the fact that only a man can impregnate a woman is discriminatory against women and the fact that only women can conceive children is discriminatory against men.


Hillary’s Call To Change

“Far too many women are denied access to reproductive health care and safe childbirth, and laws don’t count for much if they’re not enforced. Rights have to exist in practice — not just on paper,”

“Laws have to be backed up with resources and political will, and deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed.  As I have said and as I believe, the advancement of the full participation of women and girls in every aspect of their societies is the great unfinished business of the 21st century and not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

Hillary Clinton
Speech — Women in the World Summit

1.) Politically speaking this quotes represents Hillary playing to the extreme left base. Hillary almost has to say things like this because there are those who could jump into the Democratic Presidential primary contest (i.e. — Elizabeth “Pocahontas” Warren) who could sap Hillary’s support from the lunatic fringe Left (lfl). This isn’t to say that Hillary doesn’t really believe this. It is to say that if she did not feel pressure from the lfl she might not say this kind of radical thing in public.

2.) Note here that we have a full admission of a candidate for President of these united States which explicitly tells us that those who are worldview Biblical Christians much surrender their belief system if they are to be Americans. This is the smoking gun admission that a Biblical Christian will not be allowed their convictions in the public square should they remain in this country.

3.) One can’t help but wonder that if these “deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs and structural biases have to be changed,” how is that to be accomplished? Will we have re-education camps? Will we label Christians who have, what they consider to be desiderata beliefs, psychological unstable so that they have to be treated? Will we disallow them to function in the public square until those dangerous Christians get on board?

4.) Of course this requirement for “full participation  of women and girls in every aspect of their societies” does not include those girls who are tortured and murdered in their Mothers wombs. Those girls must not be allowed any participation.

5.) Notice the totalistic aspect of Hillary’s Worldview Feminism. Her worldveiw must cover the globe.

6.) If Hillary is elected we will have for Feminism the next 8 years what we’ve had for “Civil Rights” the previous six under Obama. Instead of minority rights it will be “women’s rights.” The consequence of both is the advancement of the Cultural Marxist Revolution — a Revolution that seeks to unravel what little is left of Christendom in the West.

7.) One wonders how R2K ministers handle this? Hillary is calling for these changes in beliefs as those beliefs affect the public square. I suppose R2K ministers could challenger Hillary by telling her that their Christian beliefs don’t have anything to do with what Hillary is concerned about and that she can go ahead an change away.

The Good Shepherd

Contextual BackgroundThe context for the text this morning grows out of the sustained and continued conflict of the Lord Christ with His enemies, the Pharisees.  This particular conflict starts in John 9 with Jesus healing the man born blind. Much of what is said in this passage this morning reaches back to that conflict.  That this is intense verbal conflict can be seen by the fact that this incident is sandwiched between attempts to stone the Lord Christ (John 8:59; 10:31).

John 8:59 Then took they up stones to cast at him, but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the Temple: And he passed through the midst of them, and so went his way.

John 10:31 Then the Jews again took up stones, to stone him.

 It would do well to remember that the Pharisees were the ruling religious and cultural elite at the time. They were what we today would call “the Establishment.”  This Establishment was a ruling order whose goal was to operate in the name of the Law to destroy the law in order to justify and cloak their own twisting and violation of the law.

At this point of the conflict the Lord Christ has just engaged the formerly blind man who He had healed and who had been excommunicated by those who opposed Christ. The Lord Christ receives this outcast “sheep” as His own and talks about the blind who can see and the seeing who are blind (9:38f). This outrages His enemies who see the insult in Christ’s words.

The Lord Christ then illustrates this whole particular conflict with the Pharisees that takes place in John 9, with the words we find in John 10 as He contrasts images of the true, good shepherd (Himself), on the one hand, and the thieves and bandits who oppose him on the other; the false shepherds, who do not enter the sheepfold by the gate but climb in by another way, who do not have the best interests of the sheep at heart; they steal, kill, and destroy, while Jesus, who is metaphorically both the door to the sheepfold and the shepherd of the sheep, offers abundant life.

This is then the context of the text before us.

We should say at the outset that the Lord Christ has put on display for us here a couple realities already. The Lord Christ in this passage is

Judgmental — He has assessed the situation and has determined that those who are opposing Him are false shepherds. Every time the Lord Christ speaks of Himself as “The good Shepherd” the Pharisees would have understood instantly the implication of themselves as being false shepherds. The comparison of this idea of false Shepherds had a long OT History.

In Ezekiel 34 God complained of false shepherds

Woe be unto the shepherds of Israel, that feed themselves: should not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool: ye kill them that are fed, but ye feed not the sheep. The weak have ye not strengthened: the sick have ye not healed, neither have ye bound up the broken, nor brought again that which was driven away, neither have ye sought that which was lost, but with cruelty, and with rigor have ye ruled them. And they were scattered without a shepherd: and when they were dispersed, they were devoured of all the beasts of the field.

Because of the false shepherds God promises a time when a Good shepherd will come

Ezekiel 34:22 Therefore will I help my sheep, and they shall no more be spoiled, and I will judge between sheep and sheep. 2And I will set up a shepherd over them, and he shall feed them, even my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be their shepherd.

So,  the Lord Christ, in positing that He is the promised Good shepherd. He is, at the same time, given the immediate context, adjudicating that the Pharisees are false shepherds, or merely Hirelings. I point this judgmental disposition of the Lord Christ out in order to place a counter weight to the constant sniping one will often hear that Christians shouldn’t judge.

This idea of the absolute necessity to judge is all over this passage. It is not only Christ who is judging His false shepherd enemies here but the idea of judging is contained in the truth of vs. 5

And they (Christ’s sheep) will not follow a stranger, but they flee from him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

You see. The sheep judges the voices that it hears. It knows the voice of the Good Shepherd and follows. The sheep judges between voices.

Fellow Christians — My fellow Sheep — we have to judge. All through our lives we have to judge. Now our judgments are to be made with charity and are not to be self-righteous. Further, we should gather all the facts so that we do not make “unrighteous judgments,” but we have to judge.

Isn’t our lack of judging rightly a great fault of the Church today? Our problem is not that we are too judgmental but that we aren’t judicious in the slightest. The sheep who comprise the visible Church today seem to have very little discernment at all for they follow almost any voice that is raised.

And yet our Lord Christ says here that sheep will not follow the voice of the stranger.  The Lord Christ says here that the Sheep know His voice and follow Him. This perhaps suggests how vast the necessity is within the Church to do Evangelism and Apologetics. If it is really the case that sheep of Christ will not follow the voice of a stranger and yet so many sheep in the visible Church are following voices of strangers then the only thing we can conclude, it seems, is that those sheep who are following the voices of strangers are not sheep and so need to be evangelized.

As we consider vs. 11-18 we note a clear theme here. The theme here is that the goodness of the Noble Shepherd is demonstrated by the cost that He bears. The “good Shepherd lays down His life.” This phrase is repeated 5 times between vs. 11-18 and suggests that this is the theme of these verses.

Read in light of the cross this emphasis thus has a soteriological emphasis to it. The Good Shepherd demonstrates His love for the Sheep by doing all to keep the flock. Unlike the hireling or false shepherds the Noble Shepherd consistent with His calling (cmp. vs. 18) prioritizes the flock.  When we deal with the accusations of old slewfoot … when we are burdened by our Sin … we need to keep in mind that the Good Shepherd gave His life for the flock. In the giving of His life for the flock there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are resting in the offices of the Good shepherd.

We might also employ here a greater to lesser argument. If the Noble Shepherd will do the greater work of laying down His life for the Sheep will He not also do all the lesser works that a Shepherd does with respect to the Sheep? If the True Shepherd will lay down His life for the Sheep, will He not also provide for, care for, and protect the Sheep?

This is an important point to note because Sheep are notoriously frightful and skittish beasts. And so we are. When we are tempted to be frightful and skittish we must remind ourselves of the Good Shepherd and how He keeps His own. He is the Good Shepherd. He will not abandon us nor leave us defenseless. Because we are His flock He will continue to care for us come what may.

This good Shepherd who lays down His life is more than merely a Shepherd though. This good Shepherd is divine. The divinity of the good Shepherd is already hinted at by the fact that Christ is the Divine Shepherd spoken of in Isaiah 40:11. There we find the promise of the Divine King

10 Behold, the Lord God will come with power, and his arm shall rule for him: behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd: he shall gather the lambs with his arm, and carry them in his bosom, and shall guide them with young.

This note of the Divinity of Christ as the Good Shepherd is sounded throughout this passage with the 4 “I am statements in   7, 9, 11, and 14 and made most explicit in 10:30.

30 I and my Father are one.

So this good Shepherd who lays down His life for the Sheep is a Divine Good Shepherd. This is a passage then I would go to in order to set forth the fact that the Lord Christ was very God of very God were I dealing with someone like a JW or a Muslim.

We should note the echoes that we find here of the truth of the particularity of the Atonement. Christ is going out of His way to insist that there are sheep that hear His voice and follow Him and sheep who do not hear His voice and do not follow Him (cmp. 26-27). Further, the Lord Christ says here that He lays down His life for those sheep who know Him (10:15). This pushes us to observe that the death of Christ was particular only to those Sheep that have belonged to the Shepherd from all eternity. Christ did not die for those who were not, nor ever were, nor ever would be His Sheep.

To insist that the Lord Christ died for those who were not His sheep, and never would be His Sheep would be to insist that the death of  Christ failed in its intent, and in its design to protect His sheep. It is to insist that God had an intent and design that failed. But if God had an intent and design that failed then that would require someone or something that caused God to fail in His intent and design. Whatever or whoever caused God’s intent and design to fail then would at that point be greater than God and so God would be no God. The good Shepherd who lays down His life for the Sheep gathers only the Sheep that for whom He died.

What else might we say here concerning Sheep and Shepherd?

Well, He knows his own (and loves them, 13:1). And they know him (10:14) ( see also 10:4). This is a statement that was put on display by the man born blind who at the end embraces Christ  (9:38). This reciprocal knowing is placed in parallel with the knowing intimacy between the Father and the Son (15). What is being communicated is that just as there is this harmony of interpersonal knowing between the Father and the Son so there is a interpersonal harmony of knowing between the Sheep and the Shepherd.

Of course this knowing here, though never less then a mental understanding, is more then that.  This knowing implies a fondness and a relational standing. I might say “I know my accountant.” This is more of a mental understanding. I can also say “I know my Son.” In that knowing there is more then mental understanding. In God’s knowing of us there is a intimate knowing that includes a commitment of Redemption, and the preserving of us on His part.

Now, don’t miss here an important fact. If the sheep know the Shepherd and if the Shepherd knows the Father then by necessity the Sheep know the Father. Here is the great truth that the only way to know the Father is through the Son. There is no knowing God naked. If God is to be known by the believer it is only as mediated by Christ. The knowing of the Father is only done by the knowing of the Shepherd.

Considering the other sheep of 10:16

Not of this fold — This fold doubtless refers to the fold of Israel.

What is being communicated here is the intent of the Gospel to go to the Nations.

They will hear my voice — Irresistible Grace

One Flock …. One Shepherd —

Unity and diversity here.

The diversity is found in the reality that the sheep who are to be gathered in the future are from other folds. There are distinctions between folds. Israel and the Nations are distinct.

The unity is found in the fact that these diverse folds will form one flock with one Shepherd.

The way I read this unity in diversity is that in the flock of Christ (Unity) will be many folds comprised of different nations (Diversity). There will be a Spiritual Unity comprised of Nations that are diverse by God’s creative work. The One and the Many is thus satisfied and we avoid both a Unity that gives a amalgamated Unitarianism and a diversity that would yield the war of all against all.

There is thus a Missionary impulse here. We are to be aware that the Gospel is to go to the Nations. Woe be to the person who suggests that Christ is not available for some people or nation.



The Reality of Hell

“At that greatest of all spectacles, that last and eternal judgment how shall I admire, how laugh, how rejoice, how exult, when I behold so many proud monarchs groaning in the lowest abyss of darkness; so many magistrates liquefying in fiercer flames than they ever kindled against the Christians; so many sages philosophers blushing in red-hot fires with their deluded pupils; so many tragedians more tuneful in the expression of their own sufferings; so many dancers tripping more nimbly from anguish then ever before from applause.”

“What a spectacle. . .when the world. . .and its many products, shall be consumed in one great flame! How vast a spectacle then bursts upon the eye! What there excites my admiration? What my derision? Which sight gives me joy? As I see. . .illustrious monarchs. . . groaning in the lowest darkness, Philosophers. . .as fire consumes them! Poets trembling before the judgment-seat of. . .Christ! I shall hear the tragedians, louder-voiced in their own calamity; view play-actors. . .in the dissolving flame; behold wrestlers, not in their gymnasia, but tossing in the fiery billows. . .What inquisitor or priest in his munificence will bestow on you the favor of seeing and exulting in such things as these? Yet even now we in a measure have them by faith in the picturings of imagination.”

De Spectaculis, Chapter XXX

For the Augustinians…….“They who shall enter into the joy of the Lord shall know what is going on outside in the outer darkness. . .The saints’. . . knowledge, which shall be great, shall keep them acquainted. . .with the eternal sufferings of the lost.”

Augustine, The City of God

SECTION 1.“In order that the happiness of the saints may be more delightful to them and that they may render more copious thanks to God for it, they are allowed to see perfectly the sufferings of the damned. . .So that they may be urged the more to praise God. . .the saints in heaven know distinctly all that happens. . .to the damned.”

Summa Theologica

(When the saints in glory shall see the wrath of God executed on ungodly men, it will be no occasion of grief to them, but of rejoicing.)

It is not only the sight of God’s wrath executed on those wicked men who are of the antichristian church, which will be occasion of rejoicing to the saints in glory; but also the sight of the destruction of all God’s enemies: whether they have been the followers of antichrist or not, that alters not the case, if they have been the enemies of God, and of Jesus Christ. All wicked men will at last be destroyed together, as being united in the same cause and interest, as being all of Satan’s army. They will all stand together at the day of judgment, as being all of the same company.

And if we understand the text to have respect only to a temporal execution of God’s wrath on his enemies, that will not alter the case. The thing they are called upon to rejoice at, is the execution of God’s wrath upon his and their enemies. And if it be matter of rejoicing to them to see justice executed in part upon them, or to see the beginning of the execution of it in this world; for the same reason will they rejoice with greater joy, in beholding it fully executed. For the thing here mentioned as the foundation of their joy, is the execution of just vengeance: Rejoice, for God hath avenged you on her….

At the day of judgment, the saints in glory at Christ’s right hand, will see the wicked at the left hand in their amazement and horror, will hear the judge pronounce sentence upon them, saying, 191 “Depart, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels;” and will see them go away into everlasting punishment. But the Scripture seems to hold forth to us, that the saints will not only see the misery of the wicked at the day of judgment, but the fore-mentioned texts imply, that “the state of the damned in hell will be in the view of the heavenly inhabitants; that the two worlds of happiness and misery will be in view of each other.

Jonathan Edwards
The End of the Wicked Contemplated by the Righteous
The Torments of the Wicked in Hell, No Occasion of Grief to the Saints in Heaven

In God’s providence, a few days ago I found myself in two different discussions in two different situations with two different people who do not know each other concerning the reality of Hell. Both of these folks were what has come to be known as “Annihilationists.” Annihiliationism is doctrine that some of have embraced (J. W. Wenham, John Stott) which denies most especially the eternality of Hell. Some practitioners of Annhiliationism insists that those outside of Christ cease to exist upon death (soul sleep), while other practitioners will allow for a Temporal Hell where the Rebel against God suffers the torments of Hell for a season that is fitting for their crime whereupon God snuffs them out of existence.

What I am going to do below is give a few observations about the importance of the doctrine of Hell as a concept. I am not trying to here, build a Biblical case for Hell. I am not doing so, not because it can’t be done, but rather because the reality of Hell as well as its eternality is so obvious to a natural reading of Scripture it strikes me that the people who deny the doctrine of Hell or its eternality are beyond convincing. The denial of the doctrine of Hell as well as a denial of the eternality of Hell is like the denial that Scripture prohibits women from serving in ecclesiastical office. In both cases, the Scriptures are so obvious in their articulation that trying to convince those, who are reading through or past the Scriptures, that they are in error is largely a waste of time given the pre-commitments of those who are doing the denying.

So, what I’m doing below is just giving a few observations surrounding the denial of Hell.

1.) The denial of the eternality of Hell is all the more dangerous because on the surface it seems so benign. This denial is not like the denial of the Resurrection or the Virgin Birth. No one doubts that someone who denies Hell can be in Union with Christ. (Though I would insist that such a view leaves them open to the charge of having low views of Scripture.) I do insist though that people who are Annhilationists aren’t looking under the hood of that denial to see the implications of what they are denying.

2.)  The denial of the eternality of Hell is another example of putative Christians or unlearned Christians or immature Christians attempting to make God out to be nicer than He makes Himself out to be. It is an attempt to save God from being God. It is sentimentality trying to rescue the alleged mean glowering character of God. It is another example of do gooders, who by doing their good, end up making Christianity crueler then any Devil could. This denial of the eternality of Hell is taken up by those who, at the very least think, “My God would never be that mean.” It is the argument which attempts to make God “reasonable.”

3.) Annihilationism, does not seem to comprehend that by altering the anchor example of God’s eternal justice (The condemnation to Eternal punishment for those who rebelled against God and His Christ) that the effect is a relativizing of temporal justice and punishment. If the anchor of justice is set loose and diminished in the Cosmic Divine realm the effect is to set adrift any ideas of absolute justice in the temporal realm.  If God’s justice is altered in terms of Hell and / or its duration then justice is the realm of man can be relativized and altered as well.4.) Those who insist upon the conditionality of Hell or deny the eternality of Hell are those who will, in themselves or in their generations, become those who rebel against the whole concept of fixed Justice. When we deny the proper required Justice applied (eternal Hell) against those who commit crimes against God’s character and who do not find forgiveness in Christ, we will, over the course of time, deny the proper required justice against those who commit other lesser crimes. If the required proper punishment is denied, in our thinking, against those who commit the greatest of all crimes (unrepentant rebellion against the Character of God) then the consequence of that will eventually be the denial of justice implemented against all other lesser crimes.

Getting rid of the eternal character of Hell guarantees the eventual arise of Hell on earth.

  5.) The Holiness of God is infinite and as such rebellion against God’s Holiness requires eternal punishment for those who do not close with Christ. The denial of the eternality of Hell is a denial of the august and majestic character of God. Low views of Hell insure, and in turn cause, low views of God.

Envision my point this way. If one was to change the penalty for murder from the death penalty to a $100.00 fine the obvious impact would be to cheapen the value of a life. Just so when we argue that Hell is not eternal punishment but only ceasing to exist we cheapen the value of God’s Majesty, Holiness and Transcendence.

The doctrine of Hell is a case where the punishment fits the crime. Any lesser punishment would suggest a lesser crime. The suggestion of a lesser crime would suggest that an offense against the person of God is somehow an offense that shouldn’t have the fullest possible consequences.  The eternality of Hell corresponds to the Majesty of God and His Law.

6.) Another way to frame this is to note how a threat on a President’s life brings greater punishment then that same threat levied against a homeless drunk. There is a greater punishment because the President is a greater person. The same principle applies here. When we offer up lesser penalties we communicate that God is more like the homeless drunk then He is like the President.

Page 1 of 35512345»102030...Last »