The Three Main Views of Hell

[Dennis1209]

6 hours ago, Amigo42 said:

What about people who live in the Amazon or other jungles and never heard of Jesus or seen the Bible but live more Christ-like than some churchgoers?

From Romans below, it appears everyone is given a measure of truth. From ancient times, to the present, from the deepest jungles to cities.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Two questions:

·         Who are “they?” Israel, gentiles, everyone who is alive, everyone who has ever lived.

·         Without excuse of what?

I do not know, but my reasoning suggests it depends on how much truth one has received, and what was done with that truth.

Jeremiah 29:13 And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart.

Matthew 7:7 Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you:

[Marathoner]

6 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Point of reference here regarding "Christ-like."  People can go all over the place with what this means, according to what their opinion of who Christ is, what He did or what they think His motives were.  (for instance, many Republicans think their actions are Christ-like . . . while many Democrats would disagree and think their actions are the more Christ-like  )

And your point seems to be that some unbelievers live more like Christ than actual regenerated Christians who have His life in them.  However, at the end of the day (so to speak), the thing that matters is this: Did they accept Christ in order for Him to come into them and indwell them?  (then it's up to them as to how much they cooperate with the new life that's been planted in them, and thereby do His works accordingly)

So I cannot tell (as the old song goes) how He will handle those who "never heard of Jesus or seen the Bible," but this I know, He will be completely righteous in His handling of them.

Hence the dead are judged according to their works.

Waggles has already shared relevant scripture, so there's no point in sharing those passages again. The Son of God judges all, including us, so we know who the Judge is. He is indeed merciful so the age-old question, "What about those who never heard nor learned about Christ?", was already answered by the testimony of not only the scriptures, but also by our own testimony. 

I know that the matter is not as cut-and-dried as some make it out to be. This is what some who lose their way argue against; but they are reacting to a harsh religion that is not pure in the sight of God the Father. No man can say that all of the dead will be redeemed; nor can anyone say that all of the dead will be cast into the lake of fire at the end of all things. 

The scripture tells us who among man will be cast into the lake of fire: those who worship the Beast, and those whose names are not written in the book of life. 

The Lord is not a harsh judge like some men and women prove themselves to be. He is righteous and perfect in every way.

Edited January 16, 2023 by Marathoner
Typo

[Roymond]

On 1/14/2023 at 5:06 PM, Tristen said:

 

 

My interpretation is reinforced by the presence of repetition in the provided phrase “ages of ages”. Classical Biblical languages commonly use repetition as a device to generate a superlative sentiment. I would therefore interpret “into the ages of ages” to be as close to meaning ‘forever’ as is possible for ancient Greek – i.e. not just a very long time, but an infinitely, immeasurably long period. Even in literal English, this phrase is a multiplier (“ages” x “ages”) - with the clear intent of emphasizing longevity.

So even with the information you provided, I don’t see “Forever and ever” as a “a poor translation”.

 

“In the early church both universalists and annihilationists took this to mean an extremely long time but finite; to the universalists it meant however long it took the specific soul to realize it needed God's goodness; to the annihilationists it meant however long it took a specific soul to let go of iniquity and just vanish.”

Maybe some did, and maybe some didn’t – what’s that to me?

The early church grew up speaking the Greek that we have to laboriously learn, so they had an advantage in understanding it that we not not.  So when more than one church Father has the same thing to say about an "aiwn" (aye-own), I take notice.  The Fathers are also the ones that the Holy Spirit gave to the church to lead it into all truth against the heretics who kept bringing in pagan ideas, and so should be listened to closely.

On 1/14/2023 at 5:06 PM, Tristen said:

Where does scripture claim that hell is about torturing the soul into letting go of iniquity?

Jesus used the phrase "until he has paid the last", which indicates that there will be a point when a person's iniquity will be paid for.  The question at that point is what happens to the soul which has "paid the last":  does it cease to exist, or does it enter into eternal life.

It's helpful to remember here that letting go of iniquity is what we do when we become Christians.  As spiritually dead people we are not capable of choosing Jesus, all we are capable of is surrender, letting go, the only question being whether we surrender in hope or in despair.

On 1/14/2023 at 5:06 PM, Tristen said:

I read many places scripture where the punishment is stated as a ‘forever’ punishment. You provide a definition that, to me, reinforces that interpretation. I don’t even have to look at the Greek for myself. There is no plausible way that the Author intended to convey the limitations of the punishment in the prescribed texts. The obvious point of the relevant passages is to emphasize the punishment’s longevity; explicitly, overtly.

Both the universalists and the annihilationists among the Fathers recognized this; no one said it would be quick; indeed the comparison was made with the existence of the universe by those who saw the days in Genesis 1 as "divine days" (since God was the only one at that stage capable of measuring time) and so regarded the universe as being uncountably old (an interesting note there was that God is called "the Ancient of Days", which was taken to mean having been in relation to the universe and the Earth for longer than humans could calculate on the premise that if humans could calculate an age it wouldn't be "ancient"): as old as the universe is, so would be the time of punishment (which if we go with modern science would indicate that the wicked will suffer for 13.8 billion years).  That's not to say that this is definitely what it means, just to show that they took the "ages of ages" seriously.  we should also remember that 'outside' of heaven an age was considered to be one or more thousand years, so an "age of ages" would at a minimum be a million years, and if we throw in the concept that a day is as a thousand years, then an age would come out to be 365 billion years.

On 1/14/2023 at 5:06 PM, Tristen said:

The argument being presented to me is essentially that there is a remote possibility that the words used could also refer to something “finite”. Mere possibility arguments are weak arguments. They don’t impact the overall impression I get from looking at the topic from the available textual evidence.

 

Actually the argument is that we have taken up a Latin concept and used it to turn the Hebrew and Greek concept of "an age" into something it didn't mean.  From the perspective of the Hebrew and Greek, "eternal" as unending is a "possibility argument"; in fact from the perspective of the Old Testament, even the idea that there is any consciousness after physical death is a serious "possibility argument"! -- and this applied to the judgment:  while the righteous gain life "into the ages" with God, the unrighteous have just enough time to be appalled at their wrong lives before they're gone forever.

Jesus' use of Gehenna as a comparison sheds light on this:  one of the most horrendous things a Jew of the time could look forward to would be to die and have no proper burial; so the image of being cast onto the trash heap that never stops burning would have been horrible on its own, but the recognition that the trash tossed on the heap is burned up and gone would have had its own impact -- Gehenna wasn't a place where trash tossed in was burned but not consumed (odd how the imagery of Hell so closely matches a certain Old Testament occurrence), the trash was rather consumed according to how non-flammable it was.

So the view at the time of Jesus was that death meant (eventual) non-existence, and we have to look for reasons to think otherwise.

On 1/14/2023 at 5:06 PM, Tristen said:

“Just exactly how to measure an "age" has never been entirely clear, even when defined as however long it takes in torment for a soul to let go of iniquity and then cease to exist, in terms of annihilation”

Or … defining the length of an “age” is superfluous; unnecessary to the intent of the Author – who has made no other mention of an ultimate “annihilation”.

Yet the fact is that "an age" was understood to be a limited, however extensive, period of time; that's shown by how many writers back then counted a thousand years as being an age.  The meaning of a word isn't what tradition has brought to us, it's what it meant to the people at the time it was used, and the sense in the time of Jesus generally had to do with however long it took something to be completed/finished.  It isn't "defining the length of an 'age'", it's recognizing what "an age" meant to the audience at the time.

On 1/14/2023 at 5:06 PM, Tristen said:

 

“In the context of annihilationism as considered in the early church, "pay all that is due" would be tied to giving up iniquity -”

Where does the Bible teach that hell is about tormenting a soul into “giving up iniquity”?

 

"Until he paid the last."  That phrase that Jesus used indicates an ending of "payment".  The only question is whether once "the last" is "paid" there is a release from the "prison", or rather what kind of release there is:  into nothingness or into life.  The argument of the Fathers who held that it was into life was that anything less than everyone ultimately being saved diminished the glory of Christ; the annihilationists disagreed and said that if those not saved vanished into nothingness when the "last was paid" then Christ's glory wasn't diminished.

On 1/14/2023 at 5:06 PM, Tristen said:

“Though the "until he should pay" was more commonly taken to mean that whenever the torment drove the tormented soul to finally recognize it needs God then the torture would end and the soul would pass into heaven as the least of the realm”

We are now talking about a kind of Purgatory – a path to earning our own way into heaven through personal suffering - without Christ – independent of the need for a Savior???

"Earn"?  Not in the least.  When Paul says that some will be saved "as through fire", is he saying that those will be earning their salvation?  No!  He's saying that whatever wasn't suitable for heaven is painfully purged by God.

Besides which, Purgatory was never about "earning our own way into heaven through personal suffering", it was about the torment of having all sin and sinful desires burned out, removed in the way that a red-hot steel bar would be applied to wounds to seal and heal them.  It might be linked to what Paul says about us "filling up the sufferings of Christ" -- a phrase that has puzzled the church down through the centuries -- but that's just conjecture.

[Roymond]

On 1/15/2023 at 3:22 PM, Waggles said:

In an environment that is timeless and without reference to days and years both eternal life and eternal condemnation simply are. There is no tomorrow or next week.

 

"No tomorrow or next week" would make eternity lesser than time, not greater.  There will be "tomorrow" as well as "next week", but there will be more than that; "time" in heaven won't just be a straight line we're stuck in, it will be something larger (to use a term from C. S. Lewis) than time as we know it.

My older brother the mathematician would say instead of one time axis there will be three  -- the three axes being related somehow to the Trinity -- so besides just "tomorrow" there will be "side-morrow" and "up morrow"... whatever those might mean!  I.e. now we can only move forward in time, but (in his mathematical version) then will be able to move sideways and upwards in time... whatever those might mean!

[Roymond]

On 1/16/2023 at 2:05 PM, Marathoner said:

Hence the dead are judged according to their works.

Waggles has already shared relevant scripture, so there's no point in sharing those passages again. The Son of God judges all, including us, so we know who the Judge is. He is indeed merciful so the age-old question, "What about those who never heard nor learned about Christ?", was already answered by the testimony of not only the scriptures, but also by our own testimony. 

I know that the matter is not as cut-and-dried as some make it out to be. This is what some who lose their way argue against; but they are reacting to a harsh religion that is not pure in the sight of God the Father. No man can say that all of the dead will be redeemed; nor can anyone say that all of the dead will be cast into the lake of fire at the end of all things. 

The scripture tells us who among man will be cast into the lake of fire: those who worship the Beast, and those whose names are not written in the book of life. 

The Lord is not a harsh judge like some men and women prove themselves to be. He is righteous and perfect in every way.

I'm reminded of a guest speaker back in my college days who argued that the judgment of Christ will be to merely ("merely"!) let us see ourselves as the Father sees us, so in essence we judge ourselves, and that Hell consists of nothing more than an existence in which the condemned always, always see themselves as the Father sees them.

What torment, after all, could be worse than recognizing with 100% utter clarity that all along you had a loving Father, and that you treated Him with contempt?

That thought terrifies me more than any idea of being stuck in a furnace.

[Marathoner]

47 minutes ago, Roymond said:

I'm reminded of a guest speaker back in my college days who argued that the judgment of Christ will be to merely ("merely"!) let us see ourselves as the Father sees us, so in essence we judge ourselves, and that Hell consists of nothing more than an existence in which the condemned always, always see themselves as the Father sees them.

What torment, after all, could be worse than recognizing with 100% utter clarity that all along you had a loving Father, and that you treated Him with contempt?

That thought terrifies me more than any idea of being stuck in a furnace.

Fascinating. This opens up a discussion which is off topic to the OP, so I don't wish to elaborate upon the matter beyond a brief treatment.

How God the Father sees us is the way in which the Spirit of the Lord deals with us as sons and daughters of God. We examine ourselves in the illumination given to us by our Lord Jesus Christ here and now, which is one reason why we won't be judged with the dead and this world. We're already judged and walking in His judgment while we sojourn on this earth. 

I agree with that speaker regarding the nature of the Lord's judgment, in that this expresses how the Father "sees" the dead whom the Son of God judges seated upon the Great White Throne.  

[Marathoner]

Regarding eternal torment in the lake of fire, here is the testimony of scripture.

When the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, and will come out to deceive the nations which are at the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. (Revelation 20:7-10 NASB)

The devil who deceived the nations... the beast... and the false prophet: these are those who will suffer eternal torment according to a plain reading of relevant scripture. The harmony of the scriptures bears witness to the mercy of God the Father toward man whom He loves so much that He gave His only begotten Son for the sake of us all. 

Who is man, then? Created lower than the angels, and yet we are fashioned in the image of God; recipients of God's grace, whom the Son of God grants to sit with Him upon His throne, an honor which He bestows upon no other. We who are crucified with Jesus Christ and raised with Him in newness of life shall sit with the Lord, whom we will dwell with forever and ever. 

We know that our Father in heaven is merciful even to wicked man, numbering his days on this earth so he won't endure forever in the squalor of ruin. To those whom He called, justified, and glorified, our estate is in the New Jerusalem with God when all things are made new; those whose names are not written in the book of life perish forever in the lake of fire. 

What of the dead who are spared? I cannot say, for the scriptures are silent regarding their estate. But I do know this, that the final act of God's mercy is destruction in the lake of fire for man. Notice whom He judged prior to the end of all things:

The devil and his angels, the beast, the false prophet, and those who worshiped the beast. There is no mercy afforded to the devil, the beast, and the false prophet. They shall be tormented forever and ever. 

Edited January 20, 2023 by Marathoner
typo

[JohnD]

Check out the video:

 

[Tristen]

On 1/21/2023 at 5:28 AM, Roymond said:

The early church grew up speaking the Greek that we have to laboriously learn, so they had an advantage in understanding it that we not not.  So when more than one church Father has the same thing to say about an "aiwn" (aye-own), I take notice.  The Fathers are also the ones that the Holy Spirit gave to the church to lead it into all truth against the heretics who kept bringing in pagan ideas, and so should be listened to closely.

Jesus used the phrase "until he has paid the last", which indicates that there will be a point when a person's iniquity will be paid for.  The question at that point is what happens to the soul which has "paid the last":  does it cease to exist, or does it enter into eternal life.

It's helpful to remember here that letting go of iniquity is what we do when we become Christians.  As spiritually dead people we are not capable of choosing Jesus, all we are capable of is surrender, letting go, the only question being whether we surrender in hope or in despair.

Both the universalists and the annihilationists among the Fathers recognized this; no one said it would be quick; indeed the comparison was made with the existence of the universe by those who saw the days in Genesis 1 as "divine days" (since God was the only one at that stage capable of measuring time) and so regarded the universe as being uncountably old (an interesting note there was that God is called "the Ancient of Days", which was taken to mean having been in relation to the universe and the Earth for longer than humans could calculate on the premise that if humans could calculate an age it wouldn't be "ancient"): as old as the universe is, so would be the time of punishment (which if we go with modern science would indicate that the wicked will suffer for 13.8 billion years).  That's not to say that this is definitely what it means, just to show that they took the "ages of ages" seriously.  we should also remember that 'outside' of heaven an age was considered to be one or more thousand years, so an "age of ages" would at a minimum be a million years, and if we throw in the concept that a day is as a thousand years, then an age would come out to be 365 billion years.

Actually the argument is that we have taken up a Latin concept and used it to turn the Hebrew and Greek concept of "an age" into something it didn't mean.  From the perspective of the Hebrew and Greek, "eternal" as unending is a "possibility argument"; in fact from the perspective of the Old Testament, even the idea that there is any consciousness after physical death is a serious "possibility argument"! -- and this applied to the judgment:  while the righteous gain life "into the ages" with God, the unrighteous have just enough time to be appalled at their wrong lives before they're gone forever.

Jesus' use of Gehenna as a comparison sheds light on this:  one of the most horrendous things a Jew of the time could look forward to would be to die and have no proper burial; so the image of being cast onto the trash heap that never stops burning would have been horrible on its own, but the recognition that the trash tossed on the heap is burned up and gone would have had its own impact -- Gehenna wasn't a place where trash tossed in was burned but not consumed (odd how the imagery of Hell so closely matches a certain Old Testament occurrence), the trash was rather consumed according to how non-flammable it was.

So the view at the time of Jesus was that death meant (eventual) non-existence, and we have to look for reasons to think otherwise.

Yet the fact is that "an age" was understood to be a limited, however extensive, period of time; that's shown by how many writers back then counted a thousand years as being an age.  The meaning of a word isn't what tradition has brought to us, it's what it meant to the people at the time it was used, and the sense in the time of Jesus generally had to do with however long it took something to be completed/finished.  It isn't "defining the length of an 'age'", it's recognizing what "an age" meant to the audience at the time.

"Until he paid the last."  That phrase that Jesus used indicates an ending of "payment".  The only question is whether once "the last" is "paid" there is a release from the "prison", or rather what kind of release there is:  into nothingness or into life.  The argument of the Fathers who held that it was into life was that anything less than everyone ultimately being saved diminished the glory of Christ; the annihilationists disagreed and said that if those not saved vanished into nothingness when the "last was paid" then Christ's glory wasn't diminished.

"Earn"?  Not in the least.  When Paul says that some will be saved "as through fire", is he saying that those will be earning their salvation?  No!  He's saying that whatever wasn't suitable for heaven is painfully purged by God.

Besides which, Purgatory was never about "earning our own way into heaven through personal suffering", it was about the torment of having all sin and sinful desires burned out, removed in the way that a red-hot steel bar would be applied to wounds to seal and heal them.  It might be linked to what Paul says about us "filling up the sufferings of Christ" -- a phrase that has puzzled the church down through the centuries -- but that's just conjecture.

 

“The early church grew up speaking the Greek that we have to laboriously learn, so they had an advantage in understanding it that we not not.  So when more than one church Father has the same thing to say about an "aiwn" (aye-own), I take notice.”

Greek is not an extinct language. Modern Greek may have evolved somewhat from classical Greek – but it’s still the same core language. Since the times of “the early church”, there have literally been millions of people qualified to interpret the New Testament (including Biblical translators). It is therefore not hermeneutically sound to suggest that we must uncritically accept the interpretations of some people from “the early church”. We have so much literary evidence from ancient Greece, and (Greek-speaking) Rome, that we are not exclusively reliant on pseudo-contemporary Christian authorities from closer to the time.

We should, of course, consider their arguments. But we are obligated to God to think for ourselves – and come to our own conclusions through personal investigation under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

“Fathers are also the ones that the Holy Spirit gave to the church to lead it into all truth against the heretics who kept bringing in pagan ideas, and so should be listened to closely”

You are trying to set up an Appeal to Authority. That is a logic fallacy (a technical breach of logic).

There is no concept in Biblical Christianity of Christians that are more special than other Christians - who should be “listened to” more “closely” than others (like the Catholic idea of sainthood. Biblically speaking, all sincere Christians are Saints).

Anyone (including church “Fathers”) who has an argument has the right to have their arguments fairly considered. But that is all. No one (not even so-called church “Fathers”) has the right to have their arguments automatically elevated to some special, protected status. All arguments are to be assessed on their own merits – and not the perceived status of the one providing them.

 

“Where does scripture claim that hell is about torturing the soul into letting go of iniquity?

Jesus used the phrase "until he has paid the last", which indicates that there will be a point when a person's iniquity will be paid for.  The question at that point is what happens to the soul which has "paid the last":  does it cease to exist, or does it enter into eternal life.”

There is much more to address with this phrase, than a single “question”. It is always a red flag to me when someone fails to provide the scripture reference for their supposedly knock-out argument – then tries to quickly move the conversation forward; hoping no one would notice.

- On a matter of context, Matthew 18:21-35 is a parable is explicitly about the consequences of holding unforgiveness against fellow “servants” of God. It is not about sin and hell in general. And it certainly doesn’t say anything about “letting go of iniquity”.

- The parable could be interpreted as a warning to Christians walking in unforgiveness of other Christians – rather than a warning to sinners of the threat of hell.

- I agree that the parable could be extended to the concept of hell, and maybe that is what is meant – but that is not stated explicitly. A possible insinuation holds less weight of evidence than a direct statement.

- The parable is not clear about whether or not the debt to the “master” could ever be paid back, let-alone the debt to God. In that sense, knowing that our debt to God could never be paid back adds weight to the analogous threat. Furthermore, given that the context is a parable, the fact that it may have been possible to pay back the human master a financial debt does not necessarily mean it is possible to pay back God for our iniquity.

- The phrase “until he should pay all that was due to him” may be an allusion to a possible end, but it does not directly state that there will ever be an end. It is not always possible to pay back a financial debt – even in the natural. So this scripture represents, at most, a vague insinuation of a possible end.

- The idea that our own personal suffering could ever pay back God on a scale that is equal, in effect, to Jesus’ sacrifice, is an offense to the cross. We need a Savior because we are incapable of saving ourselves. But these people have supposedly found a workaround to salvation; to pay the price for their own sins – without ever having to confess Jesus as their Lord. Yet:

John 14:6 - Jesus said to him, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through Me”

- This is a single example that doesn’t actually say what you need it to say to make your case. If your case is correct, surely there would be more compelling examples.

For the above reasons, this single, unreferenced example is very weak evidential support of your claim. Do you have any other evidence from scripture “that hell is about torturing the soul into letting go of iniquity” – because this one doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

 

“It's helpful to remember here that letting go of iniquity is what we do when we become Christians”

My “iniquity” was paid for in-full at the cross of Christ. I simply responded to that Gospel in faith and received His gift of grace. My subsequent ability (by His grace) to repent from iniquity does not earn me any more righteousness before God. I have no righteousness apart from Christ. The process of my sanctification is independent of, and subsequent to, my salvation.

 

“As spiritually dead people we are not capable of choosing Jesus, all we are capable of is surrender, letting go, the only question being whether we surrender in hope or in despair.”

This is gobbledygook!

According to scripture, all humans are dead in Adam and in sin (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22, Ephesians 2:1), and all who choose to reject Christ have made a fully cognizant decision to reject the truth (Romans 1:18-23). Therefore, if anyone rejects the salvation offered through the Gospel of Christ, they are “without excuse” (Romans 1:20).

The only people who need to be able to choose Jesus, are those who are “spiritually dead”.

 

“Actually the argument is that we have taken up a Latin concept and used it to turn the Hebrew and Greek concept of "an age" into something it didn't mean.  From the perspective of the Hebrew and Greek, "eternal" as unending is a "possibility argument"; in fact from the perspective of the Old Testament, even the idea that there is any consciousness after physical death is a serious "possibility argument"! -- and this applied to the judgment:  while the righteous gain life "into the ages" with God, the unrighteous have just enough time to be appalled at their wrong lives before they're gone forever.”

You are starting to delve into ‘Just-so’ storytelling. Instead of providing arguments, you are simply presuming to tell me how it was ‘back in the day’.

The reality is that ‘aion’ can mean a range of things including; an immeasurable amount of time, or a limited (albeit long) period of time, or the present time (present age/“the world”), or all of time leading up to the present, or a limited time after the present (“the age to come”), or all of time after the present (“into the ages” or “in the ages to come”). The intent of the Author is determined by the context – not some dubious claim from an unreferenced source claiming that the Greek word ‘aion’ typically only means one thing.

- Is our “eternal life” with Christ also time-capped? (Mark 10:30, Luke 18:30, John 4:14, 6:51, 10:28, 1 John 2:17, Revelation 22:5)

- Was Jesus being untruthful about us never seeing death? (John 8:51, 10:28, Romans 11:36, 16:27)

- Does God’s kingdom, majesty, power, might, wisdom, praise, thanksgiving, honor and glory diminish over time and eventually come to an end? (Matthew 6:13, Romans 11:36, Galatians 1:5, Ephesians 3:21, Philippians 4:20, 2 Timothy 4:18, Hebrews 13:21, 1 Peter 4:11, 5:11, 2 Peter 3:18, Jude 1:25, Revelation 1:6, 5:13, 7:12)

- Will God’s dominion one day be extinguished? (1 Peter 4:11, 5:11, Revelation 1:6)

- Is Jesus only with us for a limited amount of time? (Matthew 28:20)

- Will Jesus’ reign as King, and His kingdom eventually come to an end? (Luke 1:33, 1 Timothy 1:17, Hebrews 1:8, Revelation 11:15)

- Will Jesus’ priesthood eventually come to an end? (Hebrews 5:6, 6:20, 7:17-24)

- Is there a limit to Jesus’/God’s life? (John 8:35, 12:34, Revelation 1:18, 4:9-10, 5:14, 10:6)

- Is God, our Creator, blessed only for a limited period? (Romans 1:25, 9:5, 2 Corinthians 11:31)

- Does the purpose of Christ have a time limit? (Ephesians 3:11)

- Does “the Word of the Lord” have a used-by date? (1 Peter 1:25)

All of the above examples use the Greek word ‘aion’. All speak to an unlimited amount of time (unless you disagree?). Likewise, the clear intent of the Author when describing hell is to portray a superlative concept of time. The mere possibility that an ‘aion’, in some contexts, can be limited does not reflect the clear intention of the Author in contexts pertaining to hell.

That is, the Author is trying to convey the idea that hell is bad for longer than the longest period one can imagine; the longest possible period one can conceive in logic. It is not the Author’s intent to convey a period with limitations. I.e. There is no, ‘but one day it will be over’ clause evident in the Author’s intent.

 

“Yet the fact is that "an age" was understood to be a limited, however extensive, period of time; that's shown by how many writers back then counted a thousand years as being an age.  The meaning of a word isn't what tradition has brought to us, it's what it meant to the people at the time it was used, and the sense in the time of Jesus generally had to do with however long it took something to be completed/finished.  It isn't "defining the length of an 'age'", it's recognizing what "an age" meant to the audience at the time.”

I’ll wait to see how you respond to my above argument – in which I think I demonstrated that the Greek term “aion” was commonly used to convey the concept of “forever”.

 

“Where does the Bible teach that hell is about tormenting a soul into “giving up iniquity”?

"Until he paid the last."  That phrase that Jesus used indicates an ending of "payment". … ”

You answer here did not address the question that was asked.

 

“"Earn"?  Not in the least.  When Paul says that some will be saved "as through fire", is he saying that those will be earning their salvation?  No!  He's saying that whatever wasn't suitable for heaven is painfully purged by God.”

There is nothing righteous in us; nothing worthy of God’s glory (Isaiah 64:6, Romans 3:23). The only provided path to justification is to have the righteousness of Christ credited to our account. As Jesus said, “I am the way … No one comes to the Father except through Me” (John 14:6). There is one way provided to God, and (thankfully) it is not via hell.

 

“Besides which, Purgatory was never about "earning our own way into heaven through personal suffering", it was about the torment of having all sin and sinful desires burned out, removed in the way that a red-hot steel bar would be applied to wounds to seal and heal them”

Jesus paid the price for our sin through His humiliation and death. That is how sin is accounted for – i.e. SomeOne, that is not me, suffered the torment of the cross to pay for my sin on my behalf; a price I could not pay for myself on account of being disqualified by my own corruption. Only the Righteous is qualified to save the unrighteous.

Are you advocating hell as a type of “Purgatory”? Or are you advocating for actual “Purgatory”?

Where does the Bible say that the purpose of hell is to have “all sin and sinful desires burned out”?

 

 

[Starise]

I very much appreciate the thorough post above^^^^^^^^^^.