The Three Main Views of Hell

[Vine Abider]

A few weeks ago someone here mentioned that they'd like to see a discussion about hell. Up until about a year ago, I hadn't given the topic much time, pretty much thinking that it was a binary thing - if one isn't a regenerated believer in Christ, they will burn forever consciously (aka lake of fire). But a brother who hosts a daily radio show, Steve Gregg, talked about the subject several times and I started to realize I really didn't know what I thought I knew about the subject. And also that views other than what I held (the traditional, eternal, conscious torment view) had some interesting arguments from scripture I wasn't so aware of . . . I realized I had just a superficial knowledge at best. 

So since this is an important topic, considering that "hell" may be the future destiny of unbelievers around me, I thought to get the book brother Steve wrote on the subject. It is a thoughtful and well researched book and is called, "All You wanted to Know about Hell - Three Christian views of God's final solution to the problem of sin." on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/All-Want-Know-About-Hell/dp/1401678300

The 3 views of Hell presented are:

1. Traditionalism - eternal conscious torment 

2. Annihilationism - soul is no more 

3. Universalism - all people eventually restored to God

Regarding these three views, Steve goes into church history quite a bit and painstakingly breaks down scripture for each of these view. His stated goal is just to present these views and not to draw his own conclusions. I found it a very fascinating read, to say the least - I would highly recommend it for anyone wanting to really dive into what the word says on this topic, and to also get an understanding of how these different views came about.

Personally, I lean toward something of a mix of these . . . (big reveal: mix of traditionalism & annihilationism)

Frankly, I still can't say I know for sure what hell is all about, and I'm not "dogmatically married" to any of these 3 views, so I just tell others, "Whatever it is, the bottom-line is this - IT'S NOT GOOD and therefore is something to avoid at all costs! And the only way to do that is salvation through Jesus Christ!"

FYI & Exhortation: We batted this topic around on another Christian forum for a good while . . . I hafta say some got their feathers ruffled a bit, when their favorite view of hell came under sharp scrutiny. I hope this won't get too "ornery" on here, and that we remember this is not a core essential of our Christian faith. Let's just have some family discussion, not get too intense, and see what light the Lord Spirit will shine on the subject! (aka - let the fun begin )

PS: Anyone interested in seeing Steve Gregg do a really good lecture on these three views, it can be found by going to Youtube and searching for: Hell - Three Christian Views Lecture by Steve Gregg

Edited January 2, 2023 by Vine Abider
Clarity & Typos

[Marathoner]

It is indeed an interesting topic, my friend. Seeing as how I'm on my phone right now, I'll briefly share my understanding of the subject as time permits. I can return here later, God willing!

Destruction in the lake of fire: this is the second death referred to in the book of Revelation. Destruction --- or annihilation if you prefer --- is the judgment of the Lord regarding those whose names are not written in the book of life. They shall be cast into the lake of fire.

I find the teaching that all human souls are immortal, and thus suffer endlessly in the lake of fire, in conflict with the teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ. He is pleased to give us eternal life, but where did He say that He grants eternal life to all? He did not say this at any time, so eternal life as expressed in the scriptures is His gift to those whose lives are hidden in Him. 

Of course this is a controversial subject, one in which I disagree with my old friend who introduced me to the scriptures a long time ago. He eventually came to believe in eternal suffering over the years, but I am persuaded otherwise. We disagree, but this has no bearing whatsoever upon our fellowship in Jesus Christ. We agree on this: this is not an essential doctrine by any means!

It doesn't need to be controversial... ah, but universal salvation is another matter. That is not without its theological adherents to be sure, and I'm of the opinion that it's an error of antiquity. Antiquity? Yes: Origen of Alexandria (2nd - 3rd century theologian) was a proponent of universal salvation. 

Edited January 2, 2023 by Marathoner
Omitted words

[Tristen]

My understanding would fall somewhere in the "1. Traditionalism - eternal conscious torment " category.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 - in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

Given that:

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

I would define "hell" as eternal banishment from the true Source of all good - i.e. the utter and everlasting separation from the Source of all comfort, rest, peace, joy, love and hope.

Many places in scripture where we see the punishment of "hell" described, it has a qualifier such as "forever" or "eternal" or "everlasting" etc. I find that difficult to reconcile with either of the other two options.

 

[Vine Abider]

15 hours ago, Tristen said:

My understanding would fall somewhere in the "1. Traditionalism - eternal conscious torment " category.

2 Thessalonians 1:8-9 - in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power,

Given that:

James 1:17
Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

I would define "hell" as eternal banishment from the true Source of all good - i.e. the utter and everlasting separation from the Source of all comfort, rest, peace, joy, love and hope.

Many places in scripture where we see the punishment of "hell" described, it has a qualifier such as "forever" or "eternal" or "everlasting" etc. I find that difficult to reconcile with either of the other two options.

 

These two words in 2 Thess 1:9 "everlasting destruction" are the Greek words "olethros" and "aionios". Aionios primarily means age-long, that is, something which is not brief or fleeting.  Olethros means ruin, doom, destruction, death.  Many theologists do not think this means eternal and conscious torment, but rather that the soul is destroyed - brought to nothingness, and that it is the results that are eternal.  This seems to be the heart of annihilationistic thinking. 

[Alive]

This may help some:

 

[Vine Abider]

47 minutes ago, Alive said:

This may help some:

 

Thanks!  That looks quite involved.  And I didn't know this has been discussed to any great length on here, as someone recently asked if the 3 views of hell could be discussed. It is not a simple topic, or at least not as simple as the traditional view that much of us in Christendom seem to have been taught.

I haven't read the whole thing yet, but here's something salient I thought to pull out from it:  

Look at the many times that word for 'perish' is used. That word has meaning and the Holy Spirit chose to use it.

I only ask that you consider those verses and then ask the Lord, if what much of what christendom has taught for many years, may be false.

There are simply far more scriptures that deal with ultimate fate that mention a ceasing to exist/destruction, than those that seem to say the ultimate fate of the unredeemed are tortured for eternity.

So am I correct in saying you see some merit to the annihilation view?

Edited January 2, 2023 by Vine Abider

[TheBlade]

So what if my kid didn't want to be in my house any more. And out side my house there is nothing. So what I do is I make a place for him with out me. Seems some would see that as grace mercy. Hell was made for the devil and his angels. As its written there was no place found for him in heaven. And all those that agree with follow Satan go to the same place that was never made for them.

Here on this earth God pours out on the just and unjust. God does so much every moment of every day for those that do not believe in Him. After this life its over. That simple feeling of love hope happiness things like that are gone for those that freely knew about who Christ really was and rejected Him. We that love Him believe in Him after this life are citizens of heaven. So hell a place made for Satan and his angels. There is nothing of God there. Think about everything God is and take that out what's left?  As if that's not bad enough. He is just loving kind merciful grace forgiving. Gave them what they wanted. Ever look at it like that? I praise God I leave this all with Him I get no say what so ever here. Everything He give someone He never takes back. What ever He gave that angel when He created them and they left Him they still have. 

But hell.. its a place without God and no one on earth has ever felt it experienced it. Man look how much time has passed..for God so loved the world.

[Vine Abider]

9 minutes ago, TheBlade said:

So what if my kid didn't want to be in my house any more. And out side my house there is nothing. So what I do is I make a place for him with out me. Seems some would see that as grace mercy. Hell was made for the devil and his angels. As its written there was no place found for him in heaven. And all those that agree with follow Satan go to the same place that was never made for them.

Here on this earth God pours out on the just and unjust. God does so much every moment of every day for those that do not believe in Him. After this life its over. That simple feeling of love hope happiness things like that are gone for those that freely knew about who Christ really was and rejected Him. We that love Him believe in Him after this life are citizens of heaven. So hell a place made for Satan and his angels. There is nothing of God there. Think about everything God is and take that out what's left?  As if that's not bad enough. He is just loving kind merciful grace forgiving. Gave them what they wanted. Ever look at it like that? I praise God I leave this all with Him I get no say what so ever here. Everything He give someone He never takes back. What ever He gave that angel when He created them and they left Him they still have. 

But hell.. its a place without God and no one on earth has ever felt it experienced it. Man look how much time has passed..for God so loved the world.

So is it correct to say you hold the traditional view of hell - eternal, conscious torment?

[Tristen]

6 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

These two words in 2 Thess 1:9 "everlasting destruction" are the Greek words "olethros" and "aionios". Aionios primarily means age-long, that is, something which is not brief or fleeting.  Olethros means ruin, doom, destruction, death.  Many theologists do not think this means eternal and conscious torment, but rather that the soul is destroyed - brought to nothingness, and that it is the results that are eternal.  This seems to be the heart of annihilationistic thinking. 

 

“These two words in 2 Thess 1:9 "everlasting destruction" are the Greek words "olethros" and "aionios". Aionios primarily means age-long, that is, something which is not brief or fleeting.  Olethros means ruin, doom, destruction, death.  Many theologists do not think this means eternal and conscious torment”

From our previous discussions, you would be aware that I think the safest route for interpreting scripture is the plainest reading of the text. I would secondly suggest that the rest of scriptural insight on a topic is also highly relevant to how a verse should be interpreted.

A certain amount of textual ‘massaging’ is always available to those with an agenda to do so. The concept of hell is properly uncomfortable for everyone who understands it. I therefore believe there is a well-intended (nevertheless erroneous) agenda to mitigate the implications of God’s perfect justice by reducing the severity of His holy punishment. Like-minded theologians therefore find ways to suggest, ‘Maybe the text doesn’t actually mean what it says most plainly. Perhaps there’s another way to interpret the verse that conforms to something we would be more comfortable with’.

Obviously, the original language is an important aspect of context – not to be ignored. And I could get on board with the ‘maybes’ if there wasn’t any other scriptural information on the subject. But I see hell described in scripture as “unquenchable/eternal/everlasting fire”, as “blackness of darkness forever”:

Revelation 20:10 - The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

 

“but rather that the soul is destroyed - brought to nothingness, and that it is the results that are eternal.  This seems to be the heart of annihilationistic thinking.”

To me, that reduces the clear emphasis on a “forever” punishment to a grammatical redundancy. ‘Gone’ is ‘gone’ – there is no reason to stress the “forever” (or “eternal”, or “everlasting”) nature of non-existence.

I’m also not sure how that idea would conform to the concept of an “age-long” (“aionios”) punishment.

I would also wonder about who is doing all the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” if the souls have been “brought to nothingness”?

 

As an extra thought, the following parable verse have God delivering the “wicked” (in this case, the unforgiving) to torture until they can pay Him back what is owed.

Matthew 18:34-35 - And his master was angry, and delivered him to the torturers until he should pay all that was due to him. “So My heavenly Father also will do to you if each of you, from his heart, does not forgive his brother his trespasses.”

You and I both know that we can never repay God what is owed – which is why His Savior is our only Hope.

 

[Vine Abider]

17 hours ago, Tristen said:

I would also wonder about who is doing all the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” if the souls have been “brought to nothingness”? 

Thanks for your thoughtful for reply, sister!  Regarding your question above, I think most from the annihilation view say that there is a period before the soul is brought to nothing, and in that time there may be "weeping and gnashing of teeth."

Your points are well taken and are common related to this subject.  As I alluded to before, I hold transitional views on hell, as it certainly appears some will face that destiny meant for the devil and his angels.  However, I see that there are some pretty good persuasions that perhaps the larger number will face permeant death.  Death in its simplest form means devoid of all life with no ability to respond to anything - nothingness.

For your consideration, I thought to copy a blog article here, by someone who holds a traditional view of hell, but also sees that there is some merit to be considered regarding the annihilation view too. Let's have some conversation about what he presents, okay . . . are you open to that?  I think it would be a good place to start.

Found here: https://theologyintheraw.com/biblical-support-for-annihilation/

  In my previous post, I said that while I am not an “Annihilationist,” I do see enough biblical support for this position to qualify it as an Evangelical option. I have not yet had the time to clear my desk to engage in prayerful, thorough, painstaking exegesis to have landed on this position. But from what I have seen, there’s a good deal of sound, biblical arguments for it.
Before we examine these, we need to know what it is we’re even talking about.

Rightly understood, the annihilation view of hell says that there will be irreversible, horrific punishment for those who don’t believe in Christ. This punishment may last for a period of time, but ultimately it will end. The wicked will pass out of existence; they will not be tormented forever and ever.

This view is usually referred to as “conditional immortality” by its proponents, since immortality is a gift given to the righteous in Christ (see below). But as statement in my previous blog, I actually prefer the term “terminal punishment” instead of conditional immortality (which is still unfamiliar to many) or annihilation (which has too many negative connotations). To be clear, annihilation (hereafter “terminal punishment”) is not a product of Jehovah’s Witness theology. While it’s true that JW’s hold to this view, this doesn’t mean that they invented the doctrine nor does it mean that those who hold to terminal punishment are Jehovah’s Witness. I’m sorry to waste your time with this basic point, but I’ve actually heard people assume I’ve become Jehovah’s Witness because I see biblical support for terminal punishment. Yikes! Does that mean that I’m also Muslim because I believe in the sovereignty of God? Or Buddhist, since I believe in nonviolence? One of the more comical assumptions was from someone on Facebook who thought I might now be an atheist because they heard that I was “an Annihilationist.”

Come on, people! We must use our brains. And our Bibles. It’s a sad day in Evangelicalism when accusations and name-calling replace authentic study of God’s inspired word.

Plus, the duration of hell is not listed in the Apostle’s Creed nor the Nicene Creed—the basic standards of orthodox Christian doctrine. And while ECT has been the dominant, though not universal, Christian view, terminal punishment has been the view of several prominent Evangelical theologians throughout history.

In any case, here are some of the strongest biblical arguments in favor of terminal punishment:

First, most of the passages in the NT that talk about the fate of the wicked use language that suggests finality. Here’s just a small sampling:

“Destruction” or “perish” (Greek: apoleia or olethros Matt 7:13; John 3:16; 17:12; Acts 8:20; Rom 9:22-23; Phil 1:28; 3:19; 2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 6:9; Heb 10:39; 2 Pet 2:1; 1 Thess 5:3; 2 Thess 1:9; 1 Tim 6:9).
“Death” (Greek: thanatos or apothnesko Rom 1:32; 6:21; 7:5; 8:6; 1 Cor 15:21-22; 15:56; 2 Cor 2:16; 7:10; James 1:15; 5:20; 1 John 5:16; Rev 2:11; 20:6, 14; 21:8)
“End” (Greek: telos Rom 6:21-22; 2 Cor 11:15; Phil 3:19; 1 Pet 4:17)
“Disintegration/corruption” (phthora) (Gal 6:8; 2 Pet 1:4; 2:12).
We could add to this list several other images that would also suggest the cessation of life for the wicked. Images such as:

burned up chaff, trees, weeds, branches (Matt 3:12; 7:19; 13:40; John 15:6).
a destroyed house, discarded fish, uprooted plant, chopped down tree (Matt 7:27; 13:48; 15:13; Luke 13:7)
the Day of Judgment is compared to OT examples of the flood, destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, Lot’s wife turned into salt (Luke 17:27, 29, 32).
wicked compared to ground up powder or cut to pieces (Matt 21:41, 44; 24:51).
Let’s pause for a second. Look up some of these passages if you need to. Lay aside your assumptions as best you can and consider these points. These biblical points. I’m not saying you need to embrace this view—I haven’t embraced it yet. But any fair-minded, Bible-believing Christian should at least pause and say, “Huh, wow, a plain reading of those texts would suggest finality.”

In a recent debate between on the nature of hell between Al Mohler (ECT) and Chris Date (Terminal Punishment), Date kept giving exegetical argument after exegetical argument, and Mohler simply referred to Date’s arguments as “not the traditional reading” and clear evidence of “interpretive calisthenics.” Maybe I’m completely blinded, but is it “interpretive calisthenics” to say that destruction, death, perish, end, burned up chaff, and the destructive of Sodom and Gomorrah may actually suggest finality and not ongoing torment? Certainly, we’ll get to the counterarguments from the ECT position. But when we hear of someone embracing terminal punishment in light of the Scriptures, we should at the very least stop mocking the arguments without actually refuting them. You can acknowledge that a particular view has some good biblical merit without actually embracing it.

Second, the Bible says that the gift of immortality is only given to believers who are in Christ (see (1 Cor 15:21-23, 50-54; 2 Tim 1:10). That is, immortality (i.e. living forever) is not inherent to humankind. The soul is not inherently immortal, so ECT can only work if God miraculously gives a type of immortality to the wicked at their resurrection. But this is never clearly stated in Scripture. Immortality is only given to believers. And remember Genesis 2, where “living forever” was conditioned upon eating from the tree of life (which shows up again in Rev. 22).

What’s interesting is that Augustine, who was by far the most influential advocate for ECT, believed that the soul was immortal. (His view was carried over from his Platonic past.) For him, terminal punishment wasn’t even an option. The soul, which lives forever, must either live forever in heaven (or the new creation) or live forever in hell. ECT was the only real option for Augustine and his view was more or less embraced for the next 1,000 years.

Third, the language of “eternality” (aionios) doesn’t always (or usually?) convey the idea of never-ending time. Notice, for instance, some of the Septuagint uses of the Greek word aionios:

LXX Ps 24:7 “Life up your heads, O gates! And be lifted up, O aionioi (eternal) doors!”
LXX 1 Chron 15:2 “eternal priesthood”
So when we come to passages like 2 Thessalonians 1:9 where Paul talks about “eternal destruction,” this doesn’t have to mean “the ongoing, never ending act of destroying which is never final,” but it could very easily mean “a destruction characteristic of the ages.” Or even if aionios does signify never-ending time, when joined with olethron (“destruction”), it could mean that the destruction is final; that is, it will never end or be reversed.

And the same is true of Matthew 25:46. When Jesus says: “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life,” the “eternal punishment” doesn’t have to mean the “eternal act of punishing” but could mean the never-ending duration of the punishment—the results of the verdict.

The sum up this point, the word “eternal” (or better: “everlasting”) may refer to ECT, but it could also simply refer to the finality or completeness of the destruction or to its other worldly nature—it’s a “destruction of the ages,” or “not of this world.” Either way, it does not unambiguously refer to ECT.

I know, I know. Some of you will still say that this is interpretive calisthenics. But I disagree. This is simply the possibility of the Greek language. Again, to be clear, I’m not saying that terminal punishment is the only way, or even the best way, to interpret 2 Thessalonians 1:9 or Matthew 25:46. I do think, however, that it’s a perfectly legitimate way of understanding how the Greek adjectives and nouns can function. Only those who are conditioned to read ECT into these texts will say that they can only be interpreted to mean eternal conscious torment.

I’ve got some thoughts on the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” and “undying worm” images, but why don’t we stop here. There’s a lot to digest. But stay tuned, we’ll keep talking about hell, but I promise you: This series won’t last forever. It will terminate at some point in time.