Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Home
Catholic
History and Religion
Temporal Punishment of Believers (vs. Sean Luke)

Temporal Punishment of Believers (vs. Sean Luke)

Last updated on: May 7, 2026 at 1:26 pm by Dave Armstrong

0 Comments

Temporal Punishment of Believers (vs. Sean Luke) 2026-05-07T13:26:12-04:00 Dave Armstrong

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

Photo credit: image from the article, “Life is (not always) Good” (Evan Krane, 8-11-19, The Jewish Studio). It portrays Moses’ anger and pride at the waters of Meribah, for which God punished him.

Sean Luke obtained Masters of Divinity and Masters of Systematic Theology degrees from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He runs the YouTube channel, Anglican Aesthetics, and a Substack site with the same name. He is a member of GAFCON (Global Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans), which is a traditionalist or “orthodox” reform movement of “authentic Anglicans”. It opposes, for example, Anglicans “who have rejected the authority of God’s written Word and have put their trust in their own reason . . . most evident in the area of sexual ethics and human sexuality.”

The following exchange was on the latter page, in the combox of his article, “How Salvation is By Good Works” (5-6-26). His words will be in blue. My biblical citations are from RSV.

*****

This precise issue is what the Reformers opposed: the notion that there remains, after justification, a debt of temporal punishment . . .

E for effort . . .

Yes, it is an issue, because temporal punishment is biblical. I just made a video about it recently (primarily about indulgences, which is a relaxation of said punishment). Protestants and less informed Catholics wonder where the idea of temporal punishment for sins comes from? It sounds foreign to them: one of the many “icky” and unbiblical Catholic “inventions” as they wrongly perceive them to be. But in fact, it comes from the Bible. Here are several examples:

2 Samuel 12:13-14 (RSV) David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the LORD.” And Nathan said to David, “The LORD also has put away your sin; you shall not die. Nevertheless, because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die.”

David had committed murder and adultery. He repented and God forgave him. But he still had “temporal punishment”. His son died, and later his son Absalom would rise up and lead an armed rebellion against him. But there’s much more than this in Scripture.

We have the story of Moses’ sister Miriam, who “spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married” (Numbers 12:1). 12:9 says that “the anger of the LORD was kindled” and in 12:10 we learn that “Miriam was leprous.” This is a prime example of temporal punishment for sin. But then Moses prayed for her healing (12:13-14) and God complied. And this is exactly what an indulgence is: the removal of temporal punishment for sin. It’s clear as day, right in the Bible. Later, Moses himself suffered temporal punishment: he wasn’t allowed to enter the Promised Land:

Deuteronomy 32:51-52 . . . you broke faith with me in the midst of the people of Israel at the waters of Mer’i-bath-ka’desh, in the wilderness of Zin; because you did not revere me as holy in the midst of the people of Israel. For you shall see the land before you; but you shall not go there, into the land which I give to the people of Israel.”

The incident is recorded in Numbers 20. God had told Moses to speak to the rock, to make water come out, but in exasperation with the complaining of the people, Moses struck it twice in disobedience, and he also implied that he had the power to make the water come out, rather than God. In this case, Moses wasn’t granted an indulgence.

In Numbers 14:19 Moses prays, “Pardon the iniquity of this people” and in 14:20 God replies, I have pardoned, according to your word.” But then God goes on to say that none who rebelled against him in the wilderness would be able to enter the Promised Land, either (14:21-23). Like Moses, they didn’t receive an indulgence to remove the penalty for sin, but their sin itself was pardoned.

Thus we already see in the Old Testament both temporal punishment for sin and merciful removal of that punishment in some cases, as with Miriam. This is the doctrine of indulgences, explicitly and clearly taught in the Bible. But some might ask at this point, “are there any examples of this sort of thing in the New Testament?” The answer is yes. Paul referred to receiving Holy Communion “in an unworthy manner” (1 Corinthians 11:27). Then he wrote something very interesting and very “un-Protestant” — noting that the one who does this “drinks judgment upon himself” (11:29) and that as a result, “many of you are weak and ill, and some have died” (11:30). Once again, this is temporal punishment for sin.

In the case of a serious sinner among the Corinthians, Paul pronounced a penance, or a temporal punishment if you will, and a “judgment” so that the man could be “saved”:

1 Corinthians 1:1-5 It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and of a kind that is not found even among pagans; for a man is living with his father’s wife. [2] . . . Let him who has done this be removed from among you. [3] For though absent in body I am present in spirit, and as if present, I have already pronounced judgment [4] in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. When you are assembled, and my spirit is present, with the power of our Lord Jesus, [5] you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.

But then he later decided to relax the penance and grant an indulgence:

2 Corinthians 2:6-8, 10 For such a one this punishment by the majority is enough; [7] so you should rather turn to forgive and comfort him, or he may be overwhelmed by excessive sorrow. [8] So I beg you to reaffirm your love for him. . . . [10] Any one whom you forgive, I also forgive. What I have forgiven, if I have forgiven anything, has been for your sake in the presence of Christ,

Hey, I didn’t write the Bible, but I have defended it these past 45 years. I find that I am defending more and more of it, as time goes on, and the deeper I get into Catholicism, because we accept the whole Bible, not just carefully pre-selected cherry-picked verses, from endlessly repeated slogans. The above passages are sufficient to refute the falsehood that temporal punishment for sin isn’t biblical.

Thanks again for allowing me to make dissenting comments.

This has been addressed ad infinitum.

A) You need to show the text teaches God took the child of David as a retributive measure and not merely as a medicinal one. That is absent from the text. In truth it doesn’t specify, and so you are reading that paradigm in and not from it. The same is true of other such texts.

B) You need to show that when God relents on account of repentance from judgment, it is not merely because repentance is that through which God formally applies the passion proleptically and also because of the merit of the act. That is absent from the text and just assumed.

The text about David is very plain. The prophet Nathan proclaims: “Because by this deed you have utterly scorned the LORD, the child that is born to you shall die.” I don’t see how it could be any clearer than it is. David murdered and committed adultery; his child died as a result, even though his sin was forgiven. If that’s not a “retributive measure” then you must have a different definition. The prophet Nathan at the same time passed along God’s decision to punish David for his sin (not eternally, but temporally), even though it was forgiven:

2 Samuel 12:9-12 Why have you despised the word of the LORD, to do what is evil in his sight? You have smitten Uri’ah the Hittite with the sword, and have taken his wife to be your wife, and have slain him with the sword of the Ammonites. [10] Now therefore the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised me, and have taken the wife of Uri’ah the Hittite to be your wife.’ [11] Thus says the LORD, `Behold, I will raise up evil against you out of your own house; and I will take your wives before your eyes, and give them to your neighbor, and he shall lie with your wives in the sight of this sun. [12] For you did it secretly; but I will do this thing before all Israel, and before the sun.'”

Not much “medicine” there, is there? The rebellion of Absalom is predicted, and much more misery and suffering, too. You’re simply dismissing all of the biblical arguments I made without addressing them, and also even mischaracterizing them. This is very unimpressive, and you can do much better. Moses was surely saved, but he was temporally punished directly by God by not being allowed to enter the Promised Land. And what was the reason and the cause?: “Because you did not revere me as holy in the midst of the people of Israel.”

God pardoned the sins of the grumblers in the wilderness under Moses, as a result of his prayer, but they couldn’t enter the Promised Land, either. God provided the reason why: “none of the men who have seen my glory and my signs which I wrought in Egypt and in the wilderness, and yet have put me to the proof these ten times and have not hearkened to my voice, shall see the land which I swore to give to their fathers; and none of those who despised me shall see it” (Num 14:22-23).

The doctrine exhibited in the texts I provided is or can be both medicinal and retributive. It’s not “either/or.” Hence Paul says, “I have already pronounced judgment in the name of the Lord Jesus on the man who has done such a thing. . . . you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” (retributive — as God’s representative apostle). He also says, “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” and “this punishment by the majority is enough; . . . forgive and comfort him, . . . reaffirm your love for him” (medicinal and literally the biblical basis of an indulgence).

If I said “you son disgraced me in public by disobeying me so you need to go to your room”, that does not show I have a retributive aim towards my son

Once again, you are just asserting that “since God pardoned sinned [sic] but kept the generation from going in to the promised land, he had a retributive aim.” That doesn’t even follow from the premises. You’re missing a premise here. If you say I am “mischaracterizing your argument” you are welcome to say how rather than merely assert it.

You seem to argue that God plaguing David’s household was even primarily retributive (“not much medicinal there”). Once again, you are missing a premise. It does not follow from “God plagued David with the fruits of his sin on account of that sin” that “God sent these plagues retributively.”

***

Re–1 Cor. Paul literally gives his aim: that he may be saved. Where are you deriving the conclusion “it was retributive” from “deliver his flesh to Satan that he may be saved”? And further, where are you getting the notion that such a man wasn’t in mortal sin anyway–since if he was, no one disagrees an eternal debt hangs over him.

I never said he wasn’t in mortal sin. Of course he was.

Also, you apparently missed it in the jumble of comments, but I already stated above that Paul’s words “deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh” were in my opinion, “retributive — as God’s representative apostle” and that his words, “that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus” were properly classified as “medicinal and literally the biblical basis of an indulgence.”

It also falsifies the notion that “I provided no texts about eternal punishment but temporal punishment”. You obviously did if you think he was in mortal sin.

Then the point is moot.

Not at all. He was still subjected to temporal punishment, which is applied to the elect and the reprobate alike. We don’t know with certainty from the text whether this man is on the way to hell or not. But it seems to me (as plausible speculation) that he is not, based on Paul’s response, because he apparently repented of this sin (the temporal punishment, therefore, seems to have achieved its aim).

No one disagrees the reprobate are subject to both. The disagreement is over whether believers are subject to temporal punishment owed their sin.

That is a dodge.

They [believers] certainly are, as I already proved. David and Moses are gonna be in heaven, and they were temporally punished.

Unless you wish to argue that Moses wasn’t a believer and that David’s profound repentance, sufficient enough to be forgiven, was that of a non-believer.

I’ve addressed this. Saying “Moses was not allowed to enter the promised land on account of sin, therefore the punishment was retributive” does not follow. We can just see this in syllogistic form:

P1) Moses was not allowed to enter the promise land on account of sin

C) Therefore the punishment was retributive

If you say you’ve supplied the missing premise, state it. If it is “not being allowed to enter on account of sin is retributive”, then argue for it and don’t just assert it. You have to actually show why it must be retributive and not merely remedial in light of sin, since remedial chastisements are on account of sin. If it is “there is nothing remedial about being barred entry”, show that–we can manifestly disprove that Scripturally by the sheer fact that it tends towards Moses’s sanctification under divine providence per Rom 8:28-29.

How do you define retributive punishment?

What is the biblical basis for your definition?

On what basis do you determine that it — and/or temporal punishment, if that is a synonym for you — is applied only to nonbelievers?

If you define temporal punishment differently from divine retribution, what is the difference?

While I await your answers to what I think are very important definitional and biblical support aspects, I found a very helpful article by F. Derek Kidner (1913-2008), Anglican Old Testament scholar and Bible commentator, entitled “Retribution and Punishment in the Old Testament, in the Light of the New Testament” (posted at the wonderful biblicalstudies.org.uk site). He makes the same point I made: that St. Paul was exercising both a retributive and restorative / medicinal disciplinary practice:

In his references to his own judicial authority as an apostle, Paul is careful to stress the fact that while he is ‘ready to punish every disobedience’ (using the retributive verb, ekdikeo, 2 Cor. 10:6), his authority was given him ‘for building up and not for tearing down’ (2 Cor. 10:8; 13: 10).

Amen, or should I say, “bingo”?: to use Catholic lingo . . .

Here are fifteen examples of NT temporal punishment / chastisement, cleansing, purifying, sanctifying, etc.:

Matthew 3:11 . . . he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire. (cf. Luke 3:16)

John 15:2 Every branch of mine that bears no fruit, he takes away, and every branch that does bear fruit he prunes, that it may bear more fruit.

1 Corinthians 11:32 But when we are judged by the Lord, we are chastened so that we may not be condemned along with the world.

2 Corinthians 7:1 Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, and make holiness perfect in the fear of God.

2 Corinthians 12:7-10 And to keep me from being too elated by the abundance of revelations, a thorn was given me in the flesh, a messenger of Satan, to harass me, to keep me from being too elated. [8] Three times I besought the Lord about this, that it should leave me; [9] but he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” I will all the more gladly boast of my weaknesses, that the power of Christ may rest upon me. [10] For the sake of Christ, then, I am content with weaknesses, insults, hardships, persecutions, and calamities; for when I am weak, then I am strong.

Philippians 1:6 And I am sure that he who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ.

1 Thessalonians 2:4 . . . God who tests our hearts.

Titus 2:13-14 . . . our great God and Savior Jesus Christ, [14] who gave himself for us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds.

Hebrews 12:5-11 And have you forgotten the exhortation which addresses you as sons? — “My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, nor lose courage when you are punished by him. [6] For the Lord disciplines him whom he loves, and chastises every son whom he receives.” [7] It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? [8] If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. [9] Besides this, we have had earthly fathers to discipline us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? [10] For they disciplined us for a short time at their pleasure, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. [11] For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant; later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

James 1:12 Blessed is the man who endures trial, for when he has stood the test he will receive the crown of life which God has promised to those who love him.

1 Peter 1:4-7 and to an inheritance which is imperishable, undefiled, and unfading, kept in heaven for you, [5] who by God’s power are guarded through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time. [6] In this you rejoice, though now for a little while you may have to suffer various trials, [7] so that the genuineness of your faith, more precious than gold which though perishable is tested by fire, may redound to praise and glory and honor at the revelation of Jesus Christ.

1 Peter 4:12 Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery ordeal which comes upon you to prove you, as though something strange were happening to you.

1 John 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

1 John 3:2-3 Beloved, we are God’s children now; it does not yet appear what we shall be, but we know that when he appears we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. [3] And every one who thus hopes in him purifies himself as he is pure.

Revelation 3:19 Those whom I love, I reprove and chasten; . . .

***

Further, seeing as Anglicans and Lutherans affirm mortal sin–unrepentant sin–severs one from Christ, verses that show believers can fall under God’s eternal condemnation do not show your point.

I provided no verses here about eternal punishment, only temporal, so your first sentence is a non sequitur and has nothing to do with my arguments. Several of them made it clear that the two things were separate: the serious sins were pardoned and forgiven, but temporal punishment still remained: even in the case of the great figures of David and Moses.

***

You haven’t directly interacted with the exegetical arguments I made. I find this to be a rather common tactic in Protestant apologetics, and it gets old real quick. If my interpretations fail, show us better ones.

This is an Assertion. And RC Assertion tactics get real old and reek of desperation.

See, I can do it too.

I literally responded to each verse. And you know that.

Believe as you will. Good grief . . .

***

Photo credit: image from the article, “Life is (not always) Good” (Evan Krane, 8-11-19, The Jewish Studio). It portrays Moses’ anger and pride at the waters of Meribah, for which God punished him.

Summary: I provided several biblical examples of temporal punishment of believers: including Moses and David. Anglican Sean Luke disagreed and contended that God doesn’t do this.

Saints & Purgatory & Penance

Previous Post

May 5, 2026

Transformation of Believers (NT): 134 Passages