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

[thrombomodulin]

When I say it is meaningless, I am not saying that it is gobbledy-gook. Rather I am using "meaningless" in the sense that the sentence doesn't provide any information about reality.

In speaking of self-interest, what we are talking about here is the truth of an axiom. If you look into the topic of praxeology, which I won't try to explain any detail explain here, you will find that it represents a certain school of thought about how humans behave and act. A deductive analysis proceeds basically from one fundamental axiom and is of great value in application to the topic of economics. From the starting point, the notions of mutually beneficial exchange, the law of marginal utility, a certain class of critiques about ethical arguments, and much more can be derived. The name of the school of thought which embraces this approach is called the "Austrian school of economics", as a number of the individuals who contributed to it were citizens of Austria. The Austrian school of economics provides the means for the best defense of a free market that I am aware of.

Edit to fix typo: "on axiom" to "one axiom".

[thrombomodulin]

This is not a counter example because a persons values are not fixed.

Thrombomodulin, can you think of any possible counter-example which would count for you? Would it be logically possible for a person NOT to act out of self-interest? If so, please give me an example of what that act might be and in what circumstances.

I haven't been able to think of one so far, but remember that I am using two terms along the way here: "self-interest" and "selfish". In my efforts to think through this topic, I have been struggling to attain a precise definition to distinguish the two. We all agree that certain actions are selfish when they disregard the rights of others. For example, if I were to choose to steal from neighbor, it is selfish because I have taken property that is rightfully his, and appropriated it to myself for my own use. Namely it is selfish because I defrauded my neighbor in that he can no longer make use of the property that was his. When that "other person" who is disregarded is God, "selfish" action contains a broader scope because He says "the earth is mine and everything in it". Clearly there is a greater potential to defraud God of what is rightfully his because he owns everything. Yet all actions I take, whether good or evil, do inexorably represent what I valued and desired to accomplished do at the moment I acted. That is, they represent my self-interest.

Going back to the man in the OP, it is easy to agree that his actions would defraud God if indeed he were to become convinced ECT were false and he proceeded to act in the way that he told me he would. The trouble, for me, is on exactly what grounds to condemn him if he believes ECT is true and proceeds to refrain from sin and act righteously. It can't be because he has self-interest, for everyone has it. It could be because he defrauded God by acting in a selfish way. But if he acts righteously and refrains from sin, he has shown he valued this more than enjoying the pleasures of sin and facing a certain consequence. Steve may well be right in pointing out that because the motivation of punishment was "in the mix" of his motivations, that his motivations were not pure enough to count. I can probably go along with that, but what about slightly less pure motivations? His motivations would be more pure if it were the case that he would serve God if either ECT or annihilation is true, but not if universalism is true. That's better, but not pure enough - right? Step-by-step one could proceed this way so that if any punishment, or any reward at all is "in the mix" of motivations, that it doesn't count because its not pure enough. Maybe one could eventually reach the case where their motives are so close to pure that the only circumstance in which they would not serve God is if ECT is true (because then God is not righteous enough to be worthy of their service). The end of the matter seems to be that ever increasing steps of self denial converge upon self-interest which is the point at which further denial of self is impossible. How far is enough? How do I know that even my motives are even are pure enough, and if they are not then how do I go about improving them so that they are? A significant difficulty that I have in going all the way to Steve's position, is that I don't see believers directly commanded to ponder if they would serve God absent any punishment or any reward at all. I would like to suggest that the thought of undertaking such introspection probably has never occur to most men who profess to be Christians that I am acquainted with.

I find this topic difficult, and this dialog has been helping me work further through the topic. I would like to say that I have appreciated the input all who have contributed to this thread.

[Homer]

Peter wrote:

A significant difficulty that I have in going all the way to Steve's position, is that I don't see believers directly commanded to ponder if they would serve God absent any punishment or any reward at all. I would like to suggest that the thought of undertaking such introspection probably has never occur to most men who profess to be Christians that I am acquainted with.

I do not think so either. In more than 30 years of sermons and adult classes, countless bible studies, and numerous books and hundreds of articles read I can not recall salvation being questioned on these grounds until here.

There are a number of plain statements given concerning a person becoming "saved". "Confess Jesus as lord and believe in your heart God raised Him from the dead", "repent and be baptized", "he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved", etc. One man inquired directly "what must I do to be saved?" and was told by the apostle "believe on the Lord Jesus and you shall be saved, you and your household". Where do we find examples in scripture of people being told to examine their motives regarding any self interest they might have in the matter as far as heaven/rewards/hell are concerned? And who brought up the subjects of heaven/rewards/hell in the scriptures, and why, if not to motivate?

[jriccitelli]

The people who heard John the Baptist didn’t have to wonder ‘why’ they needed to repent (they had heard the scriptures).
If you do not love (or obey) God you will die. As an unbeliever I had to repent because I did not love God. As believers we 'can' love God, but because we are human we do not consistently do so. So we live by grace.

There is no higher form of humans. Saved or not, we are all still human with freewill’s.
That’s the problem, even though a disciple has the ‘motivation and desire’ to love our Lord and God with all our heart and mind, we still have the sin nature. So the reward and punishment (chastisement for a believer) is still necessary a motivation as it was when we first believed (not to mention the aspect of faith involved in expecting a reward).

I love my wife, but I also know 'I better' love her. Otherwise not only will her wrath fall on me, but Gods also. I don’t love her just so she won’t get mad, or just to get a reward. I love her because I adore her. But because I am human, I need additional provisions to control my behavior, therefore I am glad God watches my behavior, and I’m glad to know God would punish or chastise me if I were to wrong her (I can respect that kind of Father). And the 'rewards' for loving her, are well, a happy wife.

(By the way, I am not defending the OP as I disagree entirely. Paul addressed this point in Romans 6:1, and 6:15. Noting also 5:9 and 6:23, 7:13...)

[Singalphile]

Steve mentioned on the hour long 8/2/2013 TNP (I really enjoyed the shows with Matt R., by the way. Very good!) in response to a question about Billy Graham that Godly people are likely to become more "generous" as they get older regarding the state of those who have not heard of Christ.

We could also be generous to those who seek God and follow Christ but don't yet have that ideal mix of motives, whatever that is (and who but God can know, anyway?). I would assume that the guy in the original post is a young guy, but I don't know. I would like to correct his misunderstanding or ask him to clarify, if I could. His statement is so bizarre that I feel he must have been confused or misunderstood.

[steve7150]

The people who heard John the Baptist didn’t have to wonder ‘why’ they needed to repent (they had heard the scriptures).
If you do not love (or obey) God you will die.










Love or obey? Are they the same or complimentary? Repentance means to change your mind but it doesn't say precisely what the motivation is. Jesus said "if you love me you will follow my commands" so perhaps the definition of biblical love is different then the meaning in our culture.

[jriccitelli]

(Clarify; I didn’t mean that I disagreed with Throm’s OP, I disagreed with the ‘professed follower of Christ’ in Throms OP. I think your post and discourse is brilliant on this Throm)
And, I agree with your point awhile back 7150:
“treasures and rewards and even self-preservation are "in the mix", no doubt, but that's true of any relationship, I think…”

Love or obey? Are they the same or complimentary? 7150

If you love you will obey. Complimentary yes, but because we are human, people who indeed love one another still do not always obey or treat others as they should (any parents out there?).

Repentance means to change your mind but it doesn't say precisely what the motivation is. Jesus said "if you love me you will follow my commands" so perhaps the definition of biblical love is different then the meaning in our culture. (7150)

I was referring to the motivation from scripture: all they had was the OT. The prophets preached punishment or reward (the Law). That doesn’t mean the people couldn’t understand that the blessing of Godly living couldn't ‘result’ in love for God, Godly respect for people, and real charity. It’s a maturing process for sure,and some get it right away, and some understand slower. But nonetheless people have been known to be three dimensional enough to see that Godly living is more logical an approach to living than always sinning (partying or whatever).

People see the effects, drunk siblings, wasted lives, ruined relationships, etc, so observation and common sense is as much a motivation to live better as is just love for God (is that salvation?). And many see the sense in living a ‘Godly’ life without threat or even reward. Sense and logic sometimes appeals to us and I can't say it is necessarily a reward in the sense of gaining anything other than peace of mind. I think God gave us a sense of want for peace and unity, and I think that is why we find scripture speaking of peacemakers, forgiveness, and wisdom.

Of course some do (and some don’t) have enough sense to realize they cannot do the good they want to do, and want to control their actions, and these people are thankful for Gods Law (David says; 'How I love your Law'). Yet in Christ - He - is our Law, and He is the One we desire to control our actions.
(Some obey God, because He appeals to thier understanding. Can I love God because to do so, makes sense?)

[jriccitelli]

Some obey God, because He appeals to their understanding.
It is hard to slice what the motivation is for doing the right thing. Doing good (God’s goodwill) will always benefit the all, as well as myself. So (always) separating the two might be impossible.
Selflessness can satisfy our own desire for good, even if the greater good is to eliminate us completely. Some ‘choose’ to eliminate themselves from situations because they feel they are an obstacle or hindrance to a process.

What if people choose to selflessly eliminate themselves from a process in-order for the process to continue, or be fulfilled?

What if God does it for them? (Because they refuse to repent)

[thrombomodulin]

From the thread "Calvinism, Arminianism & Open Theism / Losing Salvation", Paidion wrote:

Jesus said:

So ... whoever of you does not forsake all that he has cannot be My disciple. (Luke 14:33)

When you became a disciple of Christ, you gave your life into His hands, and began to live your life thereafter for Him. If at some point your attitude is "To heck with this stuff!" and take your life back into your own hands, and live it for yourself again, you have undone your discipleship.

Is the proposition that "any living person can become less selfish than they already are." true or false?

If it is true, then does it not follow that no one is able to affirm that they accomplished the denial of "all"? Who then can be his disciple?

As a result of this thread, I would like to say that I have become unable to affirm that my own salvation is valid. While, I am a long way from the man I had met which I described in the OP, I know that every day I act in ways that are more selfish than I could otherwise have acted. I would like to give an example to clarify the point. This past week while working in my office, the temperature in the room was somewhat warm, and I consumed a bowl of sherbet ice cream. I didn't need to consume the ice cream. I could have had one less scoop, or even not eaten the ice cream at all. In either case, I would have consumed less, thereby allowing others (e.g. the poor) to have consume more of something else. This is true since fewer resources in the economy would have been directed into the production of ice cream, and/or since I would be able to donate to Compassion International the amount of money that instead had been spent on that ice cream. I indeed had not forsaken myself as much as I could have. I think one could make a good case that ice cream is the kind of product that a person can always forgo consuming without suffering any loss besides experiencing a certain amount of pleasure. Am I thinking incorrectly to conclude that I (or any person) who eats ice cream has failed to forsake "all he has", and hence is unqualified to be a disciple of Christ?

The same analysis as above would seem to apply to any consumption good which is not absolutely necessary to avoid one's own death by starvation or exposure.

Thanks,
Peter

[Bud]

Hi Throm,

I just checked out Compassion International, I've been praying to find an Org. like it:
Evangelical aid to children; 4 out of 4 stars from "Charity Navigator" for 12yrs, ( 800-336-7676 7-5p MT )

So I thank God he gave you a treat!

And yes, let's do tone down our own consumption (if needed) and not follow the World in Consumerism. Let's remember the poor. Let's especially remember those in our personal families and also "giving preference to those in the household of faith".

If I have ice cream tonight, I'll thank the Lord, God willing.

If I don't have ice cream tonight, I'll thank the Lord, God willing.

Blessings,
Bud