Is abstaining from sin for the wrong reasons a sin in itself? For example, if a person abstains from sin because they don't want to disappoint people or saints instead of abstaining out of love for God, is the abstinence from sin in such a case a sin in itself? To give a more particular example: let's say that an agnostic girl who used to live a depraved life (engaged in promiscuity, fornication, drugs etc.) falls in love with a Christian guy and he loves her too, but he tells her that they can only get married if she strives to repent and stop sinning. She doesn't believe in God, but because she is very much in love with the Christian guy, she quits all her sins and lies to everyone that she believes in God. She starts living a life that could be considered righteous (she dresses modestly, changes her behavior and quits all drugs and forms of fornication) and she even engages in prayer, but she only does so in order to please her partner, without believing in God. She's basically living a Pharisaic-like life. Would her change of lifestyle amount to anything in God's eyes, or will she still be damned at the end of her days?
God incarnate, of course. What you're asking is Christianity 101. Unless this person believes in Jesus it doesn't matter what she does or doesn't do, she's not earning her way to anything.
What about Luke 12:47-48? It seems to suggest that those who do wrong things because they didn't know any better will suffer less than those who do wrong things while knowing. Wouldn't she at least earn herself a lesser punishment in hell or even Purgatory?
Purgatory doesn't exist. And how could there be a lesser punishment in hell. If you're in hell, you're in hell. There are no levels.
If we were to make this argument we'd have to consider the person who belongs to a lost people group and has 'only' their conscious and creation to guide them (which is not to say that God isn't capable of directly reaching out to them). In that case, I'd be inclined to think that someone _could_ still be saved through Christ even if they don't explicitly know of Him, just as they could be 'damned'. But in either case, they aren't more-or-less saved or damned. The woman in your example is acting in what I can only assume is clear knowledge of who Jesus claims to be, so she couldn't say that she didn't know any better because she was around plenty of witnesses who were telling her 'better'. I know there are differing views of rewards in heaven and punishments in hell, and I'm not inclined to agree. Mostly that's because I don't expect any rewards myself, and to be saved by grace is more than enough (the fact that I'll be saved at all!). If I start thinking about rewards my faith turns into obedience for the sake of earning something rather than obedience out of love, and from there it turns into resentment towards those who seem to be able to 'do it'. Still, Jesus does seem to talk a lot about obedience, rewards, etc. I guess I'll let him worry about that, and I'll focus on not screwing up absolutely every day of the week (as I do currently). Gradations of hell don't make sense to me environmentally, but more importantly, to suggest that one is damned more than another is to suggest that one is closer to salvation than another, but neither were saved. That seems to assume, fundamentally, that humans can be more-or-less righteous than each other, not merely in act, but ontologically, independent of Christ. That seems very much like works-based damnation to me, so I don't buy it. Besides, if we assume an eternity of punishment then it won't matter what the gradation is, as at some point each person in Hell would have suffered themselves into insanity, and worse -- the question is, do you want to watch everyone go insane before you, and then what kind of accommodation is that ultimately? As for purgatory: Jesus already reconciled us with God, so it's an abusive theological concept that is Scripturally nonsensical.
The question is if punishment in parables like in 12:47-48 and 12:59 are related to the afterlife or the 1000 year reign perhaps. I don't see how it possibly can relate to current life.
If hell represents eternal separation from God then to argue there are degrees of separation makes little sense. Scripture talks of eternal torment without going into detail about how this sin or that sin warrants greater or lesser levels of torment. Maybe there are different levels of suffering in hell - we can speculate on all sorts of things - but it would be pretty reckless to follow a lifestyle that leads to hell in the hope that "maybe I'll be seen as a good person and my eternal torment won't be as bad as it might otherwise be". If you're going through the motions to impress someone else that sounds a lot like what Jesus called the whitewashed tombs. Others have already commented on the idea of purgatory. I can't see any Scriptural justification for purgatory without adding a huge amount of speculation and extrapolation to the words that are written. Even if purgatory did exist it makes little sense to leave sins hanging around in our lives in the hope that some curious process of purging will get rid of them later, when we could just confess them now and have them forgiven.
IMO.... Sin is a spiritual disease.... a twisted, broken aspect of our heart and soul.... the "old Adam" as Paul calls it... what traditional Christianity calls "original sin." Christians have that disease, too - although we have forgivenes sins so that we are sinner and saint - always - at the same time. That disease TENDS to have symptoms. What in traditional theology is called "actual sin" (Lutherans often call this "actualized sin"). If I have a cold, I MAY be coughing, I may be sneezing, I may have a runny nose. Those things are not the disease, but they hare common symptoms of a cold. Now, if I'm not at this moment coughing or sneezing, does that mean the cold has been cured? Well, maybe not - it may just mean that at this moment the cold isn't revealing itself with visual, notable symptoms. Or maybe I took a handful of pills that are causing the symptoms to fade. Now, is it good that I have no symptoms? You betcha. It just doesn't mean I'm not sick. It actually can be dangerous - because without the symptoms, I MAY come to think I'm sickless (a common rebuke of Jesus to the Pharisees.... "whitewashed walls"). Of course, non-Christians often see that it's bad to kill and steal and lie. You don't have to be saved, you don't have to have faith in Christ as your Savior, to recognize that. The Jews could see that Hitler was a bad dude. Hindus believe that murder is bad, too. AND if they work to "control the symptoms" of sin, good for them! Can they make progress on this? Sure.... (truth be told, one of the most righteous people I know is a Buddhist). Can they CURE the DISEASE? Nope Can they gain God's forgiveness for the disease? Nope. Can they NOT shoot and kill their boss? Yes. Without Christ, they just have the disease (and no forgiveness or salvation) but they still have SOME control over the symptoms. If not, everyone would have murdered everyone else long, long ago. As for the example, I don't think Christians should marry non-Christians. Period. But is it better to marry a non-Christian who has some control over his/her evilness or to marry one who just lies when they feel like it, kills when they feel like it, fornacates when the urge is present? Well... to me, that's not really a hard question. Side note #1. Luther has a great sermon on "being righteous before God and being righteous before man." Two different things, although both good. Side note #2. My brother-oin-law is the VP of Marketing for a company and travels a lot, all over the world. He claims the nations with the lowest crime rate.... the places people are most safe... tend to be Muslim. And everywhere where he has been the victim of crime or been told to not venture out at night have neen Christian countries. I'm make no conclusions from his comment. - Josiah