The denial of endless punishment is usually associated with the denial of those tenets which are logically and closely connected with it such as original sin, vicarious atonement, and regeneration. Of these, vicarious atonement is the most incompatible of any with universal salvation; because the latter doctrine, as has been observed, implies that suffering for sin is remedial only, while the former implies that it is retributive. Suffering that is merely educational does not require a vicarious atonement in order to release from it. But suffering that is judicial and punitive can be released from the transgressor, only by being inflicted upon a substitute. He, therefore, who denies personal penalty must, logically, deny vicarious penalty. If the sinner himself is not obliged by justice to suffer in order to satisfy the law he has violated, then, certainly, no one needs suffer for him for this purpose.*
Soli Deo Gloria!
For His Glory,
Fernando
*Shedd, G.T. (2011-05-18). The Doctrince of Endless Punishment: a 19th Century Response to Rob Bell and Love Wins (Kindle Locations 110-116). Primedia E-launch. Kindle Edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment