The Three Main Views of Hell

[Vine Abider]

1 hour ago, Vine Abider said:

Are you trying to say that some regenerated believers will go to hell?

Above asked of @Waggles

Just now, OneLight said:

I surely can't speak for Waggles, but that was my thoughts as I read the conversation.  Now I'm curious to see if I was on the right train of thought!

[Waggles]

1 hour ago, Vine Abider said:

Are you trying to say that some regenerated believers will go to hell?

Not all Christians are regenerated believers.

And many Christian churches have sold out to the enemy.

Matt 25:10  And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came; and those ready went in with him to the marriage feast: and the door was shut. 
11  And afterward come also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 
12  But he answered and said, Amen I say unto you, I know you not.

Edited January 14, 2023 by Waggles

[Sower]

21 hours ago, Waggles said:

A rather simplistic view of judgement - many many Christians will also not make it.

Define, in your understanding of what scripture says, what defines a 'Christian'

Thanks..

[Waggles]

2 hours ago, Sower said:

Define, in your understanding of what scripture says, what defines a 'Christian'

Thanks..

Acts 11:25  And he went forth to Tarsus to seek for Saul; 
26  and having found him, he brought him to Antioch. And it came to pass, both that even for a whole year they were gathered together in the church and taught a large crowd, and that the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

Now we are in danger of derailing this thread and going off track.

The point of the thread is about whether or not the lake of fire is eternal or not eternal. Annihilation or conscious weeping?

My understanding of scripture and the concept of the eternities in the next age is that there is no time and condemnation, like salvation, is timeless.

Genesis 1:14  And God said, "Let there be lights in the vaulted dome of heaven to separate day from night, and let them be as signs and for appointed times, and for days and years,

Rev 21:23  And the city has no need of the sun or of the moon, that they shine on it, for the glory of God illuminates it, and its lamp is the Lamb.

[Sower]

14 minutes ago, Waggles said:

Define, in your understanding of what scripture says, what defines a 'Christian'

Thanks..

Please clarify in your own words. It was your statement that has brought us here.
Thank you..

[Tristen]

On 1/14/2023 at 5:53 AM, Vine Abider said:

@Tristen I (finally) went back and read some of those earlier posts.  Rather than starting with a ton of verses and the interpretations thereof, I thought to maybe address this first and see if that can lead into a fruitful discussion.

Is the human soul eternal?  The traditional view holds that the soul is immortal and that this is fully supported from scripture. It is a pretty prevalent view in Christendom and it's how I was brought up. But it is in Christ that we are given eternal life.  Prior to regeneration, the bible states we were dead.  Just dead. Not living at all - no response.  But in Christ we are made alive and given eternal life.

So if we take the stance that the soul is dead and doesn't have eternal life without Christ, then it's not a big stretch to say the dead soul would not consciously tormented forever (it would have to have been given life first). If we think the soul is immortal from our physical birth, then yes, it stands to reason that if it couldn't die, then eternal conscious torment (ECT) must likely be in store.

As others on this thread have pointed out, the idea of an immortal soul seemed to have come from the Greeks.  Then Augustine took this idea and incorporated it into Christian thought (he believed in ECT) , which influenced many downstream of him.

 

The main problem I have with this argument is that it is premised on a very narrow connotation of the words “dead” and “death”.

You said, “Prior to regeneration, the bible states we were dead.  Just dead. Not living at all - no response.  But in Christ we are made alive and given eternal life”.

- So then, prior to being “made alive in Christ”, we are said to be in a state of “death”, having died “in Adam” (Romans 5:12, 1 Corinthians 15:22). And that “she who lives in pleasure is dead while she lives” (1 Timothy 5:6). And “let the dead bury their own dead” (Matthew 8:22) etc.. These people who are said to be “dead” are, self-evidently, physically alive, sentient and responsive. In fact, we hope they are responsive so that they might respond to the Gospel. Therefore, in this dispensation of our existence, "death" does not mean “Not living at all - no response” or “nothingness”.

- The second dispensation of our existence is the period after our physical "death" and before the Lake of Fire – a.k.a. “death and Hades”. It has been suggested that this is where the “weeping and gnashing of teeth” happens for those who refused God during their life. So "dead" here also does not mean “Not living at all - no response” or “nothingness”.

- Then in the Lake of Fire (a.k.a. “the second Death”), Satanic forces experience torment (Revelation 20:10), and humans experience burning (Revelation 21:8). So yet again, "death" here does not mean “Not living at all - no response” or “nothingness”.

In each case, “death” is shown to refer to a type of conscious, experiential existence - that is distinct from the "life" of God offered through Christ. It is thus called “death” rather than "life" – though it does not refer to the absence of existence. It would therefore more accurately be characterized as eternal “death” (a conscious experience of death) rather than “eternal life”.

 

[Tristen]

On 1/14/2023 at 6:22 AM, Roymond said:

"Forever and ever" is a poor translation, though; the Greek is "into the ages of ages".  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.

A "to the ages" punishment that results in annihilation would be what the "ages" description refers to, not the annihilation itself.  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.  Give how humans cling tightly to their errors and rebellions, that could be a very long time indeed, and in fact different for every soul.

The "weeping and gnashing of teeth" would be occurring during whatever period it takes to reduce a soul to "nothingness".

In the context of annihilationism as considered in the early church, "pay all that is due" would be tied to giving up iniquity -- however long that takes.  In the case of the damned, C. S. Lewis had helpful imagery:  surrendering iniquity essentially turns the soul to nothingness so only the iniquity remains, because iniquity was all that the soul of the wicked has -- and then God does away with the iniquity.

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.

 

Hi Roymond,

You said, “"Forever and ever" is a poor translation, though; the Greek is "into the ages of ages"”

Having not looked into the Greek myself, even with what you claim here, I think the distinction you are making is trivial. Using your definition, the text says there is a punishment lasting “into the ages”. I would still interpret the Author’s intent to mean that the punishment would continue ‘beyond what could be imagined’; that it would be ‘continuous beyond any foreseeable future, i.e. unending’. To me, the Author is clearly intending to emphasize the longevity of the punishment. Whereas you are interpreting the phrase to mean that the punishment is finite, limited – based purely on the possibility that “ages” theoretically have an end. I don’t think that is an honest assessment of the intent of the Author (I mean - ‘honest’ with yourself).

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?

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

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.

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.

 

“A "to the ages" punishment that results in annihilation would be what the "ages" description refers to, not the annihilation itself”

You mean - assuming there is an ultimate “annihilation”? You are making a distinction that is not evident in the text itself.

 

“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”.

 

“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”?

 

“In the case of the damned, C. S. Lewis had helpful imagery:  surrendering iniquity essentially turns the soul to nothingness so only the iniquity remains”

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

 

“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???

 

[Vine Abider]

3 hours ago, Waggles said:

Not all Christians are regenerated believers.

And many Christian churches have sold out to the enemy.

Matt 25:10  And while they went away to buy, the bridegroom came; and those ready went in with him to the marriage feast: and the door was shut. 
11  And afterward come also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us. 
12  But he answered and said, Amen I say unto you, I know you not.

Thanks.  I suppose it's in what you say the definition of Christian is.  To me, it is someone who is born again, regenerated with the life of Christ in them.

But I get your point!

Hopefully that is good to get us back on track with the subject - The 3 main views of hell.  We good @Sower?

Edited January 15, 2023 by Vine Abider
For better clarity

[Amigo42]

This is indeed an interesting topic, and one that I think has been sadly distorted by dogma and church leaders through the years.  To start this topic, one must understand the origin of the idea of hell, which is remarkably absent from the ancient Hebrew and Old Testament thought.

The idea of hell especially a place of eternal torment is only viewed as doctrinal after the Hellenization of the Jews.  Why is this important?  Well, the Greek myths of hades (a cruel place of eternal torment) was mixed with Jewish religious thought and further expanded in Christian thought.  Now some might say well, didn't Jesus talk about hell.  

Yes, but one must also remember that Jesus spoke in many parables and also attempted to speak in references and ways that people could understand at that time.  Most Jews at that time were illiterate and unschooled.  The only reference to the topic that made sense was the Valley of Gehenna, which was a trash heap outside of Jerusalem where refuse was constantly burning.  This was used as reference point, but should not be considered as literal.  

Now, with questions like this, everyone should use common sense that God gave all of us.  Does it really make sense for a God in particular a God of love to punish his own creation endlessly for trillions of years for a few years of mistakes and sin?  How is that just or right.  No, it makes no sense, but hell fire baptist preachers would say otherwise.  I'm more interested in the truth, and according to our God-given common sense that makes no sense.  The punishment must fit the crime.  Even sinful humans are fairly good at making sure the punishment fits the crime, so even more so a God of infinite love and compassion would do so.

Taking some parts of the Bible too literally can be a major stumbling block for many people unfortunately as this is not what God intended.  Now, there is another view of life that some may not agree with.  It is akin to universalism.  It is that as opposed to saying that one will go heaven after receiving salvation that all souls are actually just "returning home."  Home is where all souls must go when they leave this planet.  There is no literal hell as religious dogma teaches, but there may be certain spiritual planes of existence where correction occur for souls whose human sides messed up badly in life.  However, even for these souls, they eventually go home to the Creator who brought into this world.  In other words, God's judgment for the human being who has a temporary existence is different from how he views the originally perfect soul that inhabited that body.  All souls are created perfect and sinless.  It only the human side that is sinful and the spirit or soul may not always be able to properly guide the human side away from darkness.  Once the human side dies, it is gone completely, but the souls retains the lessons learned from that human experience.

Again, this is just a theory, and no one should state that this is complete truth.  Only God knows the complete truth.

[Waggles]

5 hours ago, Amigo42 said:

This is indeed an interesting topic, and one that I think has been sadly distorted by dogma and church leaders through the years.

I do not think that adding elements of Buddhism and Hindu reincarnation into the mix provides any answers to what the Bible teaches about judgement and the lake of fire.