The Three Main Views of Hell

[Dennis1209]

1 hour ago, Wayne222 said:

One must remember there are degrees of punishment at the last judgment. Jesus said it will be more tolerable for Sodom then for the Pharisees. Now if all get put into the lake of fire and cease to exist. Then how would it be more tolerable for some ? I believe people will exist after the judgment. But different punishment. Lake of fire can be used as a picture of God's judgement. They all are cast into God's judgement. 

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Revelation 13. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Who, dead men (the unsaved). What, the Great White Throne judgment. How, not being in the Book of life, judged by what they did in their lives (works).

Romans 12:19 Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

This is another example that refutes annihilation and favors eternal torment.  

This tells me that the condemned Hitlers, Pol Pot, and Stalin of history will be judged much harsher than the unsaved person who tried to lead a moral life, was charitable and had Biblical values.

Therefore, I assume there are different levels of eternal punishment. A Purgatory is Catholic and not Biblical.

Annihilation (removal of every trace of existence) does not seem to fit at any stage, as some argue.

I believe Jesus talked more about Hell than Heaven or Paradise. Growing up and a young adult, I remember many fervent Hellfire and brimstone messages from the pulpit at various churches we visited and on TV on Sundays. I cannot remember the last one I heard preached; they seem to have been phased out.

2 Timothy 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;

Turn the TV on Sundays these days, and it is mostly prosperity gospel, purpose-driven life, another gospel, buying books and emergency food preparation items, a watered-down gospel, not teaching the only way to Salvation, etc.

Googling the world’s wealthiest pastors and what they preach is very telling.

30+ Richest Pastors in the World and Their Net Worth 2022 (eafeed.com)

[Dennis1209]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

Probably the most concerning thing about the subject is those who are going there don't realize the gravity of their situation not seeming to care while those who aren't going there study it most.

See my musings above.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

I believe this “fear of the Lord” is reverence and respect in most instances. I think two paths lead to Salvation.

·         Love and appreciation for what the Lord Jesus did for us.

·         Fear of going to Hell for all of eternity.

When was the last time you heard a fervent Hellfire and brimstone message from the pulpit or on Sunday morning TV?

[Starise]

1 hour ago, Dennis1209 said:

See my musings above.

Proverbs 9:10 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding.

I believe this “fear of the Lord” is reverence and respect in most instances. I think two paths lead to Salvation.

·         Love and appreciation for what the Lord Jesus did for us.

·         Fear of going to Hell for all of eternity.

When was the last time you heard a fervent Hellfire and brimstone message from the pulpit or on Sunday morning TV?

Hey Dennis,

I agree people need to hear a well rounded presentation of the gospel. I hear you on that, and for most of my young life I sat under those kinds of sermons in church.

Here are a few of my thoughts for what it's worth.

There are at least several variables in a study on the subject of hell. 

-Finding out what it actually is and what each term in the bible means when we think it refers to hell.In many cases when hell is preached, the passages used are not referring to the place of eternal torment. In some cases it is.

-Viewing the destiny and state of the angels maybe differently than our state. People tend to take an all encompassing view of what happens to unsaved sinners and the angels as if it's all one event, so saying an angel is eternally punished doesn't qualify that we are. I see it as a neutral statement so far as what happens to unsaved MEN and dealt with differently, even if in the end the outcomes are similar or the same, I think we need to have that division or we are placing what happens to one group onto the other group. If the context is discussing angels and I am looking for context of men, I move on.

Further refining WHY men are sent to hell in terms of motive.

Possibilities I have heard others mention:

-God never stopped loving them, however there is no other place for them in the universe, so this is God's dumping ground  where the largest vaccum of Himself is.

-Eternal torment is just suffering for rejecting God's offer of salvation. This place was intentionally made just for torture of people who rejected God. Although in the case of men, they are being thrown into a place originally designed for fallen angels.

Thoughts on works having some influence in hell I have heard from others:

-When the dead are judged according to their works, they are sent to hell at their level. Not to be sarcastic, but what's the best place in hell? How about the lowest level? Is there any bible to back any of it up with specifics? If so I am not aware of it.

-The whole judgement of the lost on their works is mainly to substatiate to them and the rest of creation their qualification to arrive in hell. If there was no judgment, people would always claim they never had a fair shake, but as we know, NOONE'S works will get them out or qualify them without the blood of Christ, so the recourse is to show them WHY they are going there individually. 

Responses to hell

-Weeping and gnashing of teeth

When Stephen was stoned the pharisees gnashed their teeth. Gnashing can be anger or frustration. Nowhere do I read anyone repented, this is either because they know all hope is gone or they are still angry and antagonistic towards God. They could be weeping because they know what's coming and there is no recourse, not necessarily because they are in any way sorry. Gnashing and weeping could also be sheer fear. Noone wants to see this be their final end.

This has to be one of the drearest days in the history of men, to see men dropped into hell one by one after reviewing their lives and seeing their sentence.

Our view of God

Everything we read in the Bible tells us something about God. Many assume because were were made in the image of God we have a decent handle on how God should or might act, and often we will relate everything He does to the way men do things. This is a big mistake IMHO. While we DO see some similarities, as in God getting jealous, God getting angry, God forgiving, I think it is an overreach to assume things about how we think He either will or should react. Since He isn't us, then having these expectations is unrealistic IMHO.

He is Yahweh God and we won't always be able to figure Him out on human terms. This is why I think how we see Him responding to the unsaved might seem excessive to a few, but then none of us knows the whole picture from beginning to end like He does. 

I see God as 100% just. 100% holy, 100% pure and 100% sinless perfection. He won't even LOOK at any sinner not under the blood until they repent. If they don't repent, He acts accordingly to His nature. Heaven and hell are very different binary choices. I don't think any sinner CHOOSES hell, but unsaved sinners all end up there eventually.

My .00002

 

 

 

 

[Vine Abider]

3 hours ago, Starise said:

Probably the most concerning thing about the subject is those who are going there don't realize the gravity of their situation not seeming to care while those who aren't going there study it most.

Like a brother said about some folks badly misbehaving and seemingly in need of judgement - "They can't help it, they're just lost."  In this case, it's people that are unaware, therefore they just don't know what they don't know.  We only know there's something very undesirable (whatever that looks like exactly) because we've been illuminated of His Spirit.

I'm always reminded of a Jesus people cartoon I saw back in the early 70s. It had a group of people blindly marching into a gigantic, roaring fire. In front of them were a few Christians trying to hold them back.  One in the group marching into the fire says, "Man these Christians sure are pushy!"

[Vine Abider]

On 1/3/2023 at 9:52 PM, Tristen said:

 

“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."”

My first comment would be that I don’t see the concept of “a period before the soul is brought to nothing” clearly articulated in Biblical text. Whereas I do see the concept of a “forever” punishment reinforced in many Biblical passages. So again, for me it comes back to what is clearly stated, and asking myself, ‘Why I would feel the need to move away from what is clearly stated?’. Is it because, in my general reading of the text, I genuinely, objectively see an alternate interpretation, or is it because I’m having a difficult time with the severity of an eternal hell (i.e. because I have a personal agenda to make the Bible say something different)?

I had no personal agenda; I simply read a very detailed book on the subject which examined the 3 views and looked deeply into the meaning of the words and context. This made me aware that there were other, possibly legitimate views rather than the traditional view I always held.

My second response is to wonder why God is being so cruel as to torture people for “a period” when the option of immediately extinguishing their existence is available to Him. I don’t understand the purpose of such torture – since no amount of suffering can pay back what is owed. If personal suffering could pay what is owed, that would be the Catholic concept of purgatory, leading eventually to eternal life, not oblivion. So why the need to torture someone if oblivion is their final destiny anyway?

 Could it be there is some justice/requirement still needing to be met?

“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”

I think this is another semantic attempt to work-around any discomfort with the idea of a “forever” punishment.

Since I held this belief - "forever punishment" - I was not really trying to work around it.  Neither is the author of the book I cited in my opening post - just presenting the 3 views that are out there.

On a matter of logical consistency, if there is “a period” after our “death”, but before our “nothingness”, then “death” cannot be defined as “nothingness”.

The Lake of Fire, in which the devil, the beast and false prophet “will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev 20:10), is called the “second death” for rebellious humans (Rev 20:14, 21:8). Rather than being “devoid of all life with no ability to respond to anything - nothingness”, this “second death” explicitly “burns with fire and brimstone” (Rev 21:8). It is therefore not “nothingness”.

Correct.  It would seem to me, from what I understand of the annihilation view, that few humans make it to the lake of fire.  The devil/angels look like they get consciously roasted.

 

“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”

Generally speaking, I am more interested in responding to points you raise, and am somewhat reluctant to provide rebuttals to links for the following reasons:

- I don’t think it is fair for me to make arguments against someone who is not present in the conversation to defend their position.

- It takes a lot more time and effort to formulate a rebuttal argument than it does to paste a link. So, before I put in that time and effort, I prefer to have some sense that the one I am in a conversation with has also put enough effort into the topic to be able to express the point for themselves. Otherwise, it’s only me thinking for myself and putting effort into the conversation, while the other side just pastes links to ready-made arguments they agree with.

- Alternatively, I could just find links that agree with me. But that’s not really a conversation between us – just a regurgitation of what already exists on the internet.

 Understand your preference. I just thought you would appreciate an intelligent piece by someone who still holds the traditional view, but sees that there is legitimate argument for the annihilation side to consider.  I thought he stated this well and agree with almost all he said.

Having said that, I’ll make a few notes on what you pasted.

Firstly, there is a strong, and recurring, insinuation that those who read the argument are inclined to not be fair-minded – to which I would respond, ‘At least give me a chance to consider your arguments before presuming to assess how fair-minded I’m being’. This is posturing, and makes the article feel like a setup – i.e. if you disagree with the argument, the author can claim, ‘See? I told you they’d be closed-minded’. It sounds like someone who is not secure in the quality of their position. And yes, as the author notes, this is a “waste” of the reader’s “time” with an irrelevant “point”.

 Noted

“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:”

This argument takes a very narrow connotation of the words, and then proceeds to ignore any contrary information on the topic.

Just as one example; yes, “destruction” can mean obliteration from existence – into “nothingness”. But “everlasting destruction” (or, if you prefer, “age-long destruction”) speaks to a process of “destruction” occurring over a period (“everlasting”), and not to “finality” and “nothingness”.

When you used the word “permanent” above, I had to read the next sentence to understand what you meant – because “permanent” can mean a sense of “finality”, but it can also speak to an unchanging state. This demonstrates that it’s not good enough to build an argument based on a narrow connotation of a word without considering other aspects of context.

 

“the Bible says that the gift of immortality is only given to believers who are in Christ”

This is very similar to the first argument – where a very narrow understanding of the words “life” and “death” are being applied – and where there are many examples of these words being used in scripture expressing ideas outside of this very narrow understanding.

 

“the language of “eternality” (aionios) doesn’t always (or usually?) convey the idea of never-ending time”

I think I effectively argued against this in an earlier post.

The appeal to the ‘maybes’ and ‘possibilities’. i.e. ‘Sometimes this word can mean something slightly different to how it was translated. Therefore, maybe the verse we are uncomfortable with doesn’t actually mean what it says most clearly’.

Occasionally, this might be a valid approach (though to build doctrine, one would need more supporting arguments beyond ‘this is at-least one possible interpretation’). Nevertheless, on a topic that is so thoroughly addressed in scripture (such as hell), basing conclusions on this approach requires ignoring the preponderance of Biblical evidence reinforcing the idea that hell is a “forever” punishment.

 Allow me a little more time to respond to the above few paragraphs.  On the surface, the "simple reading" if you will, certainly looks like it supports the traditional view.  However, this view was greatly influenced by Augustine and then disseminated far and wide by the RCC, which had a huge influence on thinking - including the King James translators and others.  Therefore the nuances of "hell" get glossed over (hades vs Gehenna for instance) as well as the words denoting the length of time.

As another thought, I think equating the concept of ‘eternity’ and “time” can be a bit tricky. Considering that God created “time” out of eternity (i.e. God’s reality ‘before’ “time” was created) – that means there is a concept of eternity that exists independently of “time”. I’ll have to have a think about how this might impact the concept of hell.

 

Tristen - finally got some quality time for a little better reply, but owe you some more as my last response states.  I put my responses in larger green.

4 hours ago, TrueFollowerOfChrist said:

I have not seen the Youtube video or read the other responses on this thread. My view based on my reading of scripture is that Hell is a literal place of torment where people will consciously suffer for all eternity with no hope of relief. Universalism makes no sense and negates holy living, evangelism, and needing to come to Christ at all. Annihilationism also makes no sense because there is no mention in scripture about Hell being temporary. Scripture seems to indicate that people are eternal, not just the ones in Heaven, but All people. In fact I believe that annihilationism would be unjust because it would allow those who spent their lives rejecting Christ to basically "get away with it". We see in Revelation that Satan, the Beast, and the false prophet are STILL in the lake of fire after 1,000 years. So even if annihilationism were true, it would mean people still suffer for at least 1,000 years.

True follower - I included you on this as I thought you might appreciate the conversation Tristen and I are having.

[Dennis1209]

3 hours ago, Starise said:

Hey Dennis,

I agree people need to hear a well rounded presentation of the gospel. I hear you on that, and for most of my young life I sat under those kinds of sermons in church.

Here are a few of my thoughts for what it's worth.

There are at least several variables in a study on the subject of hell. 

-Finding out what it actually is and what each term in the bible means when we think it refers to hell.In many cases when hell is preached, the passages used are not referring to the place of eternal torment. In some cases it is.

-Viewing the destiny and state of the angels maybe differently than our state. People tend to take an all encompassing view of what happens to unsaved sinners and the angels as if it's all one event, so saying an angel is eternally punished doesn't qualify that we are. I see it as a neutral statement so far as what happens to unsaved MEN and dealt with differently, even if in the end the outcomes are similar or the same, I think we need to have that division or we are placing what happens to one group onto the other group. If the context is discussing angels and I am looking for context of men, I move on.

Further refining WHY men are sent to hell in terms of motive.

Possibilities I have heard others mention:

-God never stopped loving them, however there is no other place for them in the universe, so this is God's dumping ground  where the largest vaccum of Himself is.

-Eternal torment is just suffering for rejecting God's offer of salvation. This place was intentionally made just for torture of people who rejected God. Although in the case of men, they are being thrown into a place originally designed for fallen angels.

Thoughts on works having some influence in hell I have heard from others:

-When the dead are judged according to their works, they are sent to hell at their level. Not to be sarcastic, but what's the best place in hell? How about the lowest level? Is there any bible to back any of it up with specifics? If so I am not aware of it.

-The whole judgement of the lost on their works is mainly to substatiate to them and the rest of creation their qualification to arrive in hell. If there was no judgment, people would always claim they never had a fair shake, but as we know, NOONE'S works will get them out or qualify them without the blood of Christ, so the recourse is to show them WHY they are going there individually. 

Responses to hell

-Weeping and gnashing of teeth

When Stephen was stoned the pharisees gnashed their teeth. Gnashing can be anger or frustration. Nowhere do I read anyone repented, this is either because they know all hope is gone or they are still angry and antagonistic towards God. They could be weeping because they know what's coming and there is no recourse, not necessarily because they are in any way sorry. Gnashing and weeping could also be sheer fear. Noone wants to see this be their final end.

This has to be one of the drearest days in the history of men, to see men dropped into hell one by one after reviewing their lives and seeing their sentence.

Our view of God

Everything we read in the Bible tells us something about God. Many assume because were were made in the image of God we have a decent handle on how God should or might act, and often we will relate everything He does to the way men do things. This is a big mistake IMHO. While we DO see some similarities, as in God getting jealous, God getting angry, God forgiving, I think it is an overreach to assume things about how we think He either will or should react. Since He isn't us, then having these expectations is unrealistic IMHO.

He is Yahweh God and we won't always be able to figure Him out on human terms. This is why I think how we see Him responding to the unsaved might seem excessive to a few, but then none of us knows the whole picture from beginning to end like He does. 

I see God as 100% just. 100% holy, 100% pure and 100% sinless perfection. He won't even LOOK at any sinner not under the blood until they repent. If they don't repent, He acts accordingly to His nature. Heaven and hell are very different binary choices. I don't think any sinner CHOOSES hell, but unsaved sinners all end up there eventually.

My .00002

 

 

 

 

Hi Starise,

I may not have an accurate view of Hell. I cannot comprehend the length, severity, or concept either. Therefore, it is only a view my mind puts together trying to picture it.

De. 32:22; Ps. 86:13; 88:6; 139:15 gives me the impression of different levels of Hell.

If Hell is underfoot in the earth (think about this), the “bottomless pit” can only describe that there is no more bottom in any direction; one can go no further down; there is only up. Sheol and Hades seem to be different places from the BP. Likewise, Gehenna, the Abyss, under the Euphrates River, and in chains under darkness. I do not think they are all synonymous.

I think Hades (or Hell) is comparable to a jail, a holding cell until trial and judgment. Jails restrain and hold captives until trial. They are not pleasant places to be and have punishments with minimal care.

When convicted and judged, next comes prison for a specified period. Hard labor, isolated confinement, tormented, withholding, and corporate punishment is still practiced in prisons today. When a life sentence is handed down, if followed through with, the sentence is over at physical death. What about eternal souls and spiritual beings? I contend the sentence is eternal, with no commuting of sentences ever.

I see the lake of fire as the eternal destination of all unsaved men of all time (bodily), along with Satan and his minions at the close of the millennium.

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

[Selah7]

5 hours ago, Dennis1209 said:

Revelation 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. Revelation 13. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.

Who, dead men (the unsaved). What, the Great White Throne judgment. How, not being in the Book of life, judged by what they did in their lives (works).

 

@Dennis1209

Revelation 20:13 "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."

Hey, Dennis.  Here is my understanding …

Regarding souls being judged "according to their works,” this only happens in the Millennium.  Notice that faith isn’t mentioned during the Millennium. Why?  because faith is not a factor in the great white throne judgment.  The first resurrection, on the other hand, does take faith into account.  That was back on "the Lord's day.”

On the last day of the Millennium, souls are judged by works only.  Why? because “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In other words, we don't see Jesus Christ on earth today; we accept Him through faith. Today, Jesus is in heaven; He is not walking on this earth.  But in the millennium, Jesus will be right here on earth.

So let’s consider—God saves all believers who have accepted His Son by faith through repentance without Christ's physical presence here on earth. But for the unsaved during the Millennium, their salvation will be only by their works because faith and grace no longer exist for them.  Why? because in the Millennium, the Lord will be there, so they will be judged by works alone.  In other words, they have seen and experienced Jesus Christ and therefore, they are without excuse.

Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

[Dennis1209]

1 hour ago, Selah7 said:

@Dennis1209

Revelation 20:13 "And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works."

Hey, Dennis.  Here is my understanding …

Regarding souls being judged "according to their works,” this only happens in the Millennium.  Notice that faith isn’t mentioned during the Millennium. Why?  because faith is not a factor in the great white throne judgment.  The first resurrection, on the other hand, does take faith into account.  That was back on "the Lord's day.”

On the last day of the Millennium, souls are judged by works only.  Why? because “faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” In other words, we don't see Jesus Christ on earth today; we accept Him through faith. Today, Jesus is in heaven; He is not walking on this earth.  But in the millennium, Jesus will be right here on earth.

So let’s consider—God saves all believers who have accepted His Son by faith through repentance without Christ's physical presence here on earth. But for the unsaved during the Millennium, their salvation will be only by their works because faith and grace no longer exist for them.  Why? because in the Millennium, the Lord will be there, so they will be judged by works alone.  In other words, they have seen and experienced Jesus Christ and therefore, they are without excuse.

Revelation 20:14 "And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death."

You beat me to it Selah, I started reading your response, and that was the first thing that popped into my mind: 😊

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Under this scripture, how do the apostles and those in the millennium being first-hand witnesses of the miracles and evidence fit into faith?

Not that I claim to be correct, but my thoughts vary slightly from yours. Just as Jesus walked the earth as 100% God and 100% man, He will again be here on earth for 1,000 years ruling with a rod of iron.

Just as when Jesus walked the earth in the flesh for the first time, people could accept or reject Him as their Savior and Messiah. It will be no different in the millennium with free will as I envision it.

Many will rebel and gather to make war against the King of the universe. I place the last judgment, the Great White Throne judgment, at the very end of the millennium. All the unsaved of all time (including the millennium) will be bodily resurrected (with those alive) and judged according to their works.

I agree that “faith” is not a factor in the judgment because none of them have saving faith. Saving faith has not changed from Old Testament times, through the present church age, or the future Tribulation and millennium. Notice who is allowed to enter the New Jerusalem and those dogs outside are not allowed to enter.

But anyway, we all have differing views, and comparing how we interpret scripture is beneficial. Iron sharpens iron.

[Tristen]

10 hours ago, Vine Abider said:

Tristen - finally got some quality time for a little better reply, but owe you some more as my last response states.  I put my responses in larger green.

True follower - I included you on this as I thought you might appreciate the conversation Tristen and I are having.

Just a quick FYI - when you respond inside the quote, your responses are hidden from view unless the reader clicks "Expand".

 

“I had no personal agenda; I simply read a very detailed book on the subject which examined the 3 views and looked deeply into the meaning of the words and context. This made me aware that there were other, possibly legitimate views rather than the traditional view I always held”

I have no problem with the existence of “possibly legitimate views” other than what I now hold. That is why I engaged in the conversation. I am fully open to considering arguments for positions that disagree with me – so long as I am permitted to scrutinize them - as I also present my arguments for scrutiny. If it is simply your goal to have me acknowledge that there are “other, possibly legitimate views”, OK – Done.

My overall perspective on the topic so far is this: I read and study the Bible for myself and come to the conclusion that hell is a “forever” punishment; based on many lines of Biblical evidence (several of which I have already presented in the thread). Now, I don’t especially like this concept of hell, but it is not my job to like what I read in scripture. My job is to ascertain the intent of the Author. And my overall impression from multiple Biblical sources (some intimated, some implied, some directly stated) is that hell is a “forever” punishment.

Then, someone comes along and tells me I may be wrong about my understanding of hell. I am happy to hear them out – but it seems (so far) like their main argument is to take narrow connotations of words, without consideration of broader context, and to suggest that “maybe” each example could mean something other than my overall impression of what the Bible clearly teaches.

I cannot be honest with myself and at the same time be persuaded by such a weak argument. And I don’t understand how others can – unless there is some confirmation bias at play – that is, unless someone has such a strong internal desire to mitigate the severity of hell, that they are prepared to accept weak arguments in support of what they want to be true.

 

“Could it be there is some justice/requirement still needing to be met?”

I’m not sure you considered my argument.

If we could pay back God’s “justice” through personal suffering, there would be no need for a Savior. This is the big problem with the Catholic concept of Purgatory. It means we could earn our way towards (and therefore back into) God’s favor. And that means we could enter into eternal life with God; having paid back our own debt to “justice”.

But to torture someone whose suffering has no merit, before sending them into oblivion anyway, is simply cruel (since immediate oblivion is a putative option under this paradigm).

 

“I think this is another semantic attempt to work-around any discomfort with the idea of a “forever” punishment.

Since I held this belief - "forever punishment" - I was not really trying to work around it.  Neither is the author of the book I cited in my opening post - just presenting the 3 views that are out there”

In fairness, I was responding to a specific, presented argument – in which I addressed the rational weakness and logical inconsistency of the presented argument. I therefore postulated that acceptance of such a weak, inconsistent argument speaks to a bias, or agenda, or desire, or motive to mitigate the severity of hell away from a “forever” punishment. My comment was not made in isolation, but in the context of an overall argument.

 

“The Lake of Fire, in which the devil, the beast and false prophet “will be tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev 20:10), is called the “second death” for rebellious humans (Rev 20:14, 21:8). Rather than being “devoid of all life with no ability to respond to anything - nothingness”, this “second death” explicitly “burns with fire and brimstone” (Rev 21:8). It is therefore not “nothingness”.

Correct.  It would seem to me, from what I understand of the annihilation view, that few humans make it to the lake of fire.  The devil/angels look like they get consciously roasted.”

I don’t think your characterization of my argument is “correct”. Where is it stated that only a “few humans make it to the lake of fire”?

Firstly, every soul remaining in “Death and Hades” goes into “the lake of fire”.

Revelation 20:14-15 - Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.

Revelation 21:8 - But the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murderers, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.

 

“On the surface, the "simple reading" if you will, certainly looks like it supports the traditional view.  However, this view was greatly influenced by Augustine and then disseminated far and wide by the RCC, which had a huge influence on thinking - including the King James translators and others.  Therefore the nuances of "hell" get glossed over (hades vs Gehenna for instance) as well as the words denoting the length of time”

My problem is that these supposed “nuances” (the ones I’ve encountered so far) are in conflict with the overall impression I get from the “simple reading” of multiple relevant passages of scripture considered together.

I’m not exactly sure what is the relevance of the influence of “Augustine” – or if that is even a bad thing. Are you telling me that all Biblical “translators” relied on “Augustine” to translate, instead of their own expertise in classical Biblical languages? Has that been the same for the many thousands of Biblical language scholars who have existed since “Augustine”? Is any of Augustine’s uber-influence over Biblical translation evidenced, or just claimed as an Unsupported Assertion?

Again, the main “nuances” presented to me so far amount to; taking a word in isolation, then suggesting the “mere possibility” that “maybe” this word could have been translated in a slightly different way. OK – but “maybe” it was translated correctly – which (in my mind) seems to fit better with the preponderance of scripture I’ve found on the same subject.

 

 

[B3L13v3R]

I find the Scripture is crystal clear on the matter. Our Lord Jesus Christ didn't mince words, He used words like "everlasting fire, everlasting punishment, eternal damnation."
Who am I going to believe? Christ!

As has been mentioned, it's the same Greek word used for "eternal & everlasting" when Heaven and Hell are mentioned!
Eternal:G166
aiōnios
ahee-o'-nee-os
From G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): - eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

Is God Love? Yes! - He loved us so much, He shed His blood for our sins, died on the cross, 3 days later resurrected to be seen by over 500 people for a period of 40 days, and now He sits at the right hand of the Father! Now THAT'S LOVE!

Can there be love without justice? No. Heaven and Hell are man's ultimate eternal destination, and without Christ upon death, Hell is the destination, followed a short time later by the eternal Lake of Fire, after God's final judgement on each and every individual that did not repent, and believe on Him.
Revelation 20:12  And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Revelation 20:15  And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the Lake of Fire.

In my love for Him, I regularly street preach/teach eternity in Hell, and eternity in Heaven. No matter how folks spin it, this matter is "eternally" settled for this man, and by the Word of God whose context is clear.
We can see this in the following examples. Please consider them in the "context" in which our Lord spoke them:

Matthew 25:41  Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

Matthew 25:46  And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Mark 3:29  But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation:

Mark 9:42-49  And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea. (43) And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: (44) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (45) And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched: (46) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched. (47) And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire: (48) Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

2Thessalonians 1:7-10  And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels, (8) In flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God, and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ: (9) Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power; (10) When he shall come to be glorified in his saints, and to be admired in all them that believe (because our testimony among you was believed) in that day.

Jude 1:7  Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Revelation 14:9-12  And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, (10) The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: (11) And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name. (12) Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.

As previously mentioned, even in the Old Testament, Daniel 12:2 uses the same word "everlasting" in both everlasting life, and everlasting contempt!

Daniel 12:2  And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Everlasting: H5769
‛ôlâm  ‛ôlâm
o-lawm', o-lawm'
From H5956; properly concealed, that is, the vanishing point; generally time out of mind (past or future), that is, (practically) eternity; frequentative adverbially (especially with prepositional prefix) always: - always (-s), ancient (time), any more, continuance, eternal, (for, [n-]) ever (-lasting, -more, of old), lasting, long (time), (of) old (time), perpetual, at any time, (beginning of the) world (+ without end). Compare H5331, H5703.

May any in Christ be looking forward to being on this side of eternal life in the not too distant future! Reach out, and look to point others in this direction also!
1 John 5:11-13  And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. (12) He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life. (13) These things have I written unto you that believe on the name of the Son of God; that ye may know that ye have eternal life, and that ye may believe on the name of the Son of God.