If eternal conscious torment is false, then its "party time"

[thrombomodulin]

A professed follower of Christ, who is thoroughly convinced of the eternal conscience torment view, was candid enough to state that if the ECT view of hell were not a true doctrine, then he would be unwilling follow Christ. I do not find it very remarkable to have encountered a person expressing this opinion. After all, some men value forgoing the pleasure of sin more than the alternative of suffering eternally, yet they value forgoing the pleasure of sin less than the alternative finite punishments that comprise the other views of hell. This is a quite rational ranking of values if the pleasures of sin are highly cherished, and if the ECT indeed presents a more horrid punishment than the other views of hell (a part of the reason why many here reject ECT).

Would I be right to say that a person who holds, and acts upon, such a scale of values (i.e. he believes ECT and repents) is expressing a faith that is acceptable? Would this be true even if it turns out that ECT is a false doctrine? Suppose further, such a person eventually comes to believe that ECT is a false doctrine. Clearly then it requires no change at all to the values he holds to bring about a change in his actions. Formerly he would have refraining from sin and obeyed all of Christs commands, but afterwards he would engage in sin and disobey Christ without remorse. Clearly after rejecting ECT, such a person shall not have such a faith that would spared him from eschatological judgement.

I must admit I'm not clear about whether a persons faith more relates to their internal scale of values or to their actions. If a persons faith is defined by the ranking of values they hold, then teaching different views of hell has no direct relationship to their salvation***, but if a persons faith is defined by their actions, then it seems to be an inescapable conclusion that teaching the views of hell is potentially causing some men, such as the one mentioned above, to become unsaved. Do I have this right?

*** I am using the term salvation in the traditional sense of escaping the punishment of the final eschatological judgement

[Paidion]

If people fulfil moral imperatives only out of fear of doing otherwise, then their "morality" doesn't seem to be worth much. A person who truly cares about himself and others will not change even if he comes to believe that there are no consequences to immoral actions. His reasons for being righteous are not based on fear.

It's like a child who obeys his parents out of fear of the consequences if he does not VERSUS the child who obeys his parents out of respect.

[steve]

...it seems to be an inescapable conclusion that teaching the views of hell is potentially causing some men, such as the one mentioned above, to become unsaved. Do I have this right?

Not the way I understand it. The man is forcing himself to be unsaved, by his rejection of the terms of discipleship. He is like the bride at her own wedding who has been asked by the preacher, "Will you take this man to be your husband, to love and to cherish, etc. etc..." and who responds, "Only under threat of infinite torture!"

Take the person who says, "If the alternative is eternal torment, then I guess I'd rather have Jesus than that—but, if there is no infinite torment threatened, it's 'party time,' Baby!" This guy is not a Christian, even if he pretends to embrace Christian truths. He does not love God. He loves sin and is afraid of God. This is precisely the same spiritual state as that of the Pharisees. They weren't saved either.

The first step to coming after Christ is to "deny yourself." Those who will only repent in order to serve themselves (like the man described) are very far from having made this first step, and can not have genuinely made any subsequent steps either.

[Paidion]

Well said, Steve. I concur completely.

[thrombomodulin]

It has been my understanding that God appeals to men to follow him on both the basis of the threat of punishment and also the promise of future rewards. If this is true, then what is wrong with affirming that threat of punishment, in greater or lesser degree, is a motivating factor in choosing to give up one's worldly desires and sin to follow Christ. What passages of scripture would you cite to demonstrate that motivations, not just a persons actual choices and course of action, matter?

Edit to add: Doesn't a person who chooses to forgo sin, although some part of him desires it, fulfill the requirement to "deny oneself"? After all, there is no denial of self if there remain no sinful desires.

[steve]

I understand "deny yourself" not as simply denying yourself certain desired activities, but as denying your self-centered orientation in favor of embracing Christ Himself (not just His benefits).

If a man proposes to a woman who is being pursued by another suitor, and says, "I have much more to give you, and will treat you much better than he will," this does not mean that he hopes she will marry him without loving him. He may be greasing the skids a bit, to help her decide wisely, but I can't imagine a sane man saying, "You really should marry me, because, if you don't I will pursue you relentlessly and make the rest of your life miserable."

Again, if she says, "I really love the other guy more, but I will marry you in order to avoid endless torture," then this is no basis for a marriage.

As for God's insistence upon proper motivation (not just good behavior), I would recommend reading the prophets' rebukes of their hypocritical (but religious) countrymen, and everything Jesus taught, for support. Motive, apparently, is everything.

[thrombomodulin]

The marriage analogy is helpful and most certainly plausible. I still have some doubts about whether it is demonstrated in the scripture.

There is the notion of "self interest", and "selfish interest" although I don't know how to clearly divide the two concepts. This is probably the root of the problem. Is it your position that if one is motivated solely by selfish interest (rewards and punishments) then they possess an inadequate faith? But, of course, no decisions are made in a vacuum. Since divine rewards and punishments are a fact of our existence, how can anyone know for sure that they have a genuine faith - namely a faith based solely in self interest, but not selfishness? Would we not only know the answer if we were actually faced with a choice absent the influence of these external factors? I have trouble here because it seems impossible to completely remove motivations that involve self interest (which is what you may be affirming we must do). For example, I think I have heard you say "All I want to do is please Christ", but yet the "I want to" remains a part of the statement which reflects a certain desire of one's own self interest. The difference seems then only one of degree, and not of a kind.

[Paidion]

This reminds me of a film I once saw, in which Mother Theresa was explaining her love for those whom she served. The interviewer insisted she did it for selfish reasons. She must be serving others because of the pleasure she got from it. His attitute didn't seem to disturb Mother Theresa in the least. She just went on talking joyfully about how wonderful the Lord is, and how privileged she was to serve the needs of others.

Finally the interviewer was reduced to stating a position which is impossible to refute. He said, "You MUST have acted selfishly. Otherwise you wouldn't have done it." That is, his premise was that all human action has to be performed in the interests of self—that it is impossible to act from any other motive.

[thrombomodulin]

I hope that statement is indeed not impossible to refute, for then it may be impossible to disabuse me of this error. The interviewers final statement is a near equivalent to the action axiom as stated by Ludwig Von Mises. The interviewer, however, would have done better to say that Mother Teresa acted out of self interest, rather than that she acted selfishly. I believe the interviewers statement is correct. What distinguishes her from the man I described above is that they have a different ranking of values. Any persons actions demonstrate the values they hold.

The trouble with this idea is that it means that the command to "deny oneself" is simply impossible to do. It is, however, possible to act in a non-selfish manner as Mother Teresa has. It is my hope that Jesus meant only that we should not act selfishly, and that he did not mean we must act without self interest.

[steve]

Hi Peter,

I don't know what is or is not possible for anyone else in particular. I only know what goes on inside my own head.

If I were asked, "If there was no heaven, would you still lay down your life for your children?" It is simple to answer truthfully: "Of course! I do not serve my children because of my hope of heaven. I serve them because I love them."

Likewise, when asked, "If there were no heaven, would you still lay your life down for God?" it is simple and honest to answer similarly.

To answer otherwise would mean that I love God less than I love my children, and cannot be a disciple (Luke 14:26; Matt.10:37).