Skip to main content

Punishing People Doesn't Atone for Their Sin

  Little do some people know, punishing others for their sin will not atone for their sin, abrogate their sin, take care of their sin, or cleanse them of their sin. I am mainly speaking here about the misguided notion of humans punishing other humans for their sins.  Only Jesus Christ can take away sin because he was considered as a lamb without spot or blemish, the perfect sacrifice (according to 1 Peter 1:19, John 1:29, Hebrews 10:12).  Furthermore, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ was once for all and doesn't require any further sacrificial atonement in any capacity whatsoever, and this concept is repeated often in the book of Hebrews (for example, Hebrews 9:12, 10:10, 10:14).
  There are forms of "punishing" people in church discipline and other aspects of life, but actual consequences never atone for people's sin, they only urge people to repent. Procedures should always resemble Biblical steps such as Matthew 18:15-17.
  People, in their wicked human nature, always tend to take their striving for revenge, vengeance, and punishment far beyond the Biblical idea of "eye for an eye."  A person who loses their eye typically wants to cut another's head off and eat their heart for breakfast. That is unrighteous behavior and thinking, and people should be using the civil and criminal courts to seek justice anyway. Jesus warned people in the sermon on the mount, "...do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also" (Matthew 5:39).
  A study of the civil ordinances in the Old Testament will reveal that many of the statutes follow the principle of restorative justice and restitution. The offender pays back the victim in a sum equivalent to the wrongdoing. Modern criminal justice should generally reflect the principles found in the civil ordinances of the Mosaic Law.
   All of this is notwithstanding the specific way in which God's wrath might be satisfied by punishing people in hell (though it is eternal punishment, so we can't assume the wrath is ever satisfied). The whole first part of this post was to communicate specifically as to how things are "under the sun" in terms of human relations (and what we have to consider about Jesus Christ), not how God's wrath is poured out against the unsaved. However, atonement has the specific connotation of reconciliation- sinners reconciling with a holy and just God. "When we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to Him [God] through the death of his Son (Romans 5:10; see also 2 Cor 5:18-19, Ephesians 2:16; Colossians 1:20). Punishment in hell has no aspect of reconciliation that I've ever seen the scriptures.
 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Personality Types and the Fall of Man Argument

   There will be some who will want to say that I was being illogical or unbiblical when I wrote the post about how personality differences get misunderstood.  Their argument is basically that differing personalities are a consequence of the Fall of Man- a consequence of the DNA getting disordered.  Therefore, they will say, that people who don't fit the "perfect personality" are sinful. God created one man, they will say, with a perfect personality (Adam).  In truth, they can cite Adam, Eve, and Jesus.  That argument is not correct, and I will stand my ground on this.    The reason why they are not correct is because they are making the unwarranted assumption all of Adam's descendants would have had the same personality had the Fall never happened. I can say with a fair degree of certainty that had the Fall never happened, there would have been different kinds of people with different personalities, it just would have been a more perfect world. ...

Nice Dissenting Opinion on the Fairness of the Criminal Justice System

   I was recently having a conversation with someone about the possibility for unreliability and/or unfairness in the criminal justice system. I was reminded of this quote from a Supreme Court case which is from Justice Harry Blackmun's dissenting opinion. The case was Darden v. Wainwright 477 U.S. 168 (1986). Obviously he's talking about the Supreme Court level, but if this could be said about their accuracy, then how shall we communicate about fairness at the trial court level? "JUSTICE BLACKMUN, with whom JUSTICE BRENNAN, JUSTICE MARSHALL, and JUSTICE STEVENS join, dissenting. Although the Constitution guarantees a criminal defendant only "a fair trial [and] not a perfect one,"  Lutwak v. United States,   344 U. S. 604 ,  344 U. S. 619  (1953);  Bruton v. United States,   391 U. S. 123 ,  391 U. S. 135  (1968), this Court has stressed repeatedly in the decade since  Gregg v. Georgia,   428 U. S. 153  (1976), that ...

Is Anybody Thinking Whatsoever?

See my comments below......    Let me explain further. According to Catholic dogma/teaching, they must oppose abortion "in all forms."  See the Catholic Catechism, which clearly states in 2272  "Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life"  Therefore, Catholics CANNOT vote for Hillary Clinton. If they don't like Donald Trump they have to find an independent party they agree with and vote for that person. They would be sinning according to their own religious worldview if they actually voted for Hillary Clinton.  link to Catholic Catechism  (on abortion)    Catholics should also consider the Catholic sin of "scandal." It is a sin for them to vote for Hillary Clinton. To quote the Catholic Catechism, "Therefore, they are guilty of scandal who establish laws or social structures leading to the decline of morals and the c...