The Three Main Views of Hell

[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.

[Starise]

I admit I have waffled on this subject, mainly because when we are talking about people being toasted eternally I wanted to make sure. To me this is a BIG deal.

Let's face it, whether you believe hell is eternal forever punishment or not, hell makes a very effective religious control mechanism. I never liked the idea of using it this way because I don't think it entices unbelivers to look at Christ in the right way. Many churches are using hell as a bargaining chip which I think puts the cart somewhat before the horse.

To be fair, air breathers with barely a 70-80 year life expectancy on a good day should be coming to the realization that this will end. Sooner than many think it will. Age is yet another bad way to probably view this because this means 18 year olds can give it less weight. Not true. Plenty of 18 years olds dying. 

Motive is everything here. Ideally pastors are entrusted to present the full view of the bible from front to back.

Coming to Christ involves more than a simple nod that says , " I don't want to go to hell". A LOT more. Many denominations/religions today try to fill the gap between what a person wants to do to get by and those things they want to do they know God disapproves of. Ideally if they could do the things God calls sin, go somewhere once a week and 'repent'. Life is good, or so they think. They look at life like an appeasment process, God is happy, I am happy. I have just enough God to make things work, but not so much that I am one of those religious nut cases. Most of these people are unsaved.

When one of these people hears a hellfire and brimstone sermon, many of them think, " I had better do something" Then they see an invitation line. Off they go to get 'saved', but are they really sincere? Some will say yes, we scared the h*** out of them, but saved to what? They ran from but might not have run to.

So yes, hell is hot, you will burn there if unsaved, but if you follow Jesus you won't need to look at the alternative.

[Waggles]

50 minutes ago, Starise said:

but if you follow Jesus you won't need to look at the alternative.

Now that is waffle.

What does it mean to follow Jesus?

When I came to the Lord the Holy Spirit immediately cleansed me from cigarettes, marijuana and alcohol. I became holy, sanctified and clean.

Yet I see millions of Christians that smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. Is that following Jesus. Is that denying one's life? Is that putting to death the flesh?

1Cor 6:19  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 
20  for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

What does it mean to follow Jesus?

[Starise]

1 minute ago, Waggles said:

Now that is waffle.

What does it mean to follow Jesus?

When I came to the Lord the Holy Spirit immediately cleansed me from cigarettes, marijuana and alcohol. I became holy, sanctified and clean.

Yet I see millions of Christians that smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. Is that following Jesus. Is that denying one's life? Is that putting to death the flesh?

1Cor 6:19  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 
20  for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

What does it mean to follow Jesus?

Yes and I readily admit I waffled on hell because the very thought of people roasting forever is one of the most unpleasant thoughts anyone could have.

I can say with 90% certainty now that it is probably forever with high hopes the other 10% is actually right.  Most of my head says it's forever, but my heart runs the other way.

What does it mean to follow Jesus? It means to be willing to give up everything because we are bought with a price. This is why the road to heaven is narrow.

[Vine Abider]

1 hour ago, Starise said:

I admit I have waffled on this subject, mainly because when we are talking about people being toasted eternally I wanted to make sure. To me this is a BIG deal.

Let's face it, whether you believe hell is eternal forever punishment or not, hell makes a very effective religious control mechanism. I never liked the idea of using it this way because I don't think it entices unbelivers to look at Christ in the right way. Many churches are using hell as a bargaining chip which I think puts the cart somewhat before the horse.

To be fair, air breathers with barely a 70-80 year life expectancy on a good day should be coming to the realization that this will end. Sooner than many think it will. Age is yet another bad way to probably view this because this means 18 year olds can give it less weight. Not true. Plenty of 18 years olds dying. 

Motive is everything here. Ideally pastors are entrusted to present the full view of the bible from front to back.

Coming to Christ involves more than a simple nod that says , " I don't want to go to hell". A LOT more. Many denominations/religions today try to fill the gap between what a person wants to do to get by and those things they want to do they know God disapproves of. Ideally if they could do the things God calls sin, go somewhere once a week and 'repent'. Life is good, or so they think. They look at life like an appeasment process, God is happy, I am happy. I have just enough God to make things work, but not so much that I am one of those religious nut cases. Most of these people are unsaved.

When one of these people hears a hellfire and brimstone sermon, many of them think, " I had better do something" Then they see an invitation line. Off they go to get 'saved', but are they really sincere? Some will say yes, we scared the h*** out of them, but saved to what? They ran from but might not have run to.

So yes, hell is hot, you will burn there if unsaved, but if you follow Jesus you won't need to look at the alternative.

Point well taken!  It is a serious topic. As I think I said in the opening post, whatever it ("hell") is, it is definitely not pleasant and to be avoided at all costs. 

as you said, there's so "much more" to be gained in Christ and I too don't believe the gospel should be focused on that aspect, but rather on the love and grace coming to us in accepting Christ.  I'm not saying the negative side shouldn't be mentioned at all, and folks should be aware of the downside too of not accepting Christ.  I've read how Jonathan Edwards' preaching on "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" caused people to wail in fear and then come to Christ by the scores, so the Spirit can use that kind of speaking.  But as I've read the NT, I don't think I've seen that approach being used - right?

And as the OP I feel remise in that I haven't replied to a few posts (@Tristen - yer included here).  I was one who never questioned very much regarding the traditional view of eternal conscious torment, as that seemed like what was apparent in scripture.  But after diving into various books and other writings, as well as the original language meaning, etc., I saw that this was another one of those things that warrants the  traditional veneer being be scrapped off a little. However, each time I've gone to respond on this thread in more detail, I feel some resistance in me to do so - perhaps the Anointing is trying to tell me something here . . .

Edited January 12, 2023 by Vine Abider
typo & clarity

[Vine Abider]

9 minutes ago, Waggles said:

Now that is waffle.

What does it mean to follow Jesus?

When I came to the Lord the Holy Spirit immediately cleansed me from cigarettes, marijuana and alcohol. I became holy, sanctified and clean.

Yet I see millions of Christians that smoke cigarettes and drink alcohol. Is that following Jesus. Is that denying one's life? Is that putting to death the flesh?

1Cor 6:19  Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, 
20  for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.

What does it mean to follow Jesus?

The Spirit needed to cleanse you of those specific things it sounds like.  (For me, the pleasant experience I got from smoking pot was removed in an instant.)  For others, the Spirit takes away other things as is needed.

When I was in my drug hay-day (1970s) I believe the Lord also miraculously kept me from using needles (my skin turned into impenetrable leather one time), because I'm sure that would have been a major ruination.

So I cannot tell why different ones do this or that.  When I start wondering about others too much, the words "What is that to you? As for you, follow me!" often come to me. (John 21:22)

[Starise]

10 minutes ago, Vine Abider said:

Point well taken!  It is a serious topic. As I think I said in the opening post, whatever it ("hell") is, it is definitely not pleasant and to be avoided at all costs. 

as you said, there's so "much more" to be gained in Christ and I too don't believe the gospel should be focused on that aspect, but rather on the love and grace coming to us in accepting Christ.  I'm not saying the negative side shouldn't be mentioned at all, and folks should be aware of the downside too of not accepting Christ.  I've read how Jonathan Edwards' preaching on "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" caused people to wail in fear and then come to Christ by the scores, so the Spirit can use that kind of speaking.  But as I've read the NT, I don't think I've seen that approach being used - right?

And as the OP I feel remise in that I haven't replied to a few post (@Tristen - yer included here).  I was one who never questioned very much regarding the traditional view of eternal conscious torment, as it that seemed what was apparent in scripture.  But after diving into various books and other writings, as well as the original language meaning, etc., I saw that this was another one of those things that warrants the veneer of tradition being be scrapped off a little. However, each time I've gone to respond on this thread in more detail, I feel some resistance in me to do so - perhaps the Anointing is trying to tell me something here . . .

I held back too because we have had similar discussions here before. While most will try to make this all look cut and dried, I'm still holding out. As someone who doesn't yet feel I have all the info needed to make my own decisions on this subject, I would rather say I am not sure than drive toward some unsure outcome.

I will say the argument is strong that it is eternal, but there are also other passages which 'appear' to look otherwise. I can only hope what 'appears' to be that way is, because the alternative is as bad as it ever gets.

I talked with a person who wants to go to hell. This person fights any efforts to try and talk to them about the outcome of going there, and for me it's a sad thing to see. For that person, any discussion on hell only makes them more determined to go the other way. I don't quite inderstand the logic. They apparently hate God to such a degree that hell ( in their mind) is preferable.

[Vine Abider]

1 minute ago, Starise said:

I held back too because we have had similar discussions here before. While most will try to make this all look cut and dried, I'm still holding out. As someone who doesn't yet feel I have all the info needed to make my own decisions on this subject, I would rather say I am not sure than drive toward some unsure outcome.

I will say the argument is strong that it is eternal, but there are also other passages which 'appear' to look otherwise. I can only hope what ;appears' to be that way is, because the alternative is as bas as it ever gets.

I talked with a person who wants to go to hell. This person fights any efforts to try and talk to them about the outcome of going there, and for me it's a sad thing to see. For that person, any discussion on hell only makes them more determined to go the other way. I don't quite inderstand the logic. They apparently hate God to such a degree that hell ( in their mind) is preferable.

Regarding your last paragraph about a person wanting to go to hell because they hate God - WOW!  In going through Revelation again here, it's been remarkable to see those that even after significant "prodding" they still hate God and want to fight him.  What is this than a full manifestation of their father, the devil who hates God until the end!?

And ditto on the first two paragraphs.  In looking at the passages that seem to point to annihilation rather than eternal torment, I then will read some verse that certainly looks like it's eternal . . . I keep thinking maybe only the hardest ones will wind up going into the lake of fire.