Hell Theology: Not As Clear Cut As People Proclaim?

[Bluesh1ft]

It is often believed that Hell is eternal conscious torment the likes of which is is either horribly excruciating pain or absolute darkness and separation from God with some sort of mental/spiritual decay.

I am here to argue that Hell and Judgement is more complicated then that. Or that the bible leaves room for possibilities which haven't been revealed through scripture.

I want you to ask yourselves two questions:

1. Could these passages indicate varying duration's in hell
2. Could these passages indicate punishments that are far less severe

Note: The center of this topic isn't to prove or disprove annihilation or conditionalism, but instead to see if the passages I will mention open up possibilities for Hell that are not within the realm of conventional thought.

Matthew 26:24

"The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

But if hell is what is primarily taught, wouldn't it have been better for everyone not saved to have never been born? Why make such a focus on a particular man if the common held belief people have today is true? Even if hell were different fire intensities the lowest flame level for eternity, that person would still be better off not ever being born.

Lets look at another verse.

Luke 17:2

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin."

Here we see that it would be better to die instantly than to sin more and go to hell with a greater sin. Waiting for judgement after death or in the real world..... which is preferable and again ...this verse may hint at more variation in hell and judgement as well.

Colossians 1:19

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

I wonder if this means that there is some sort of effect on the damned as well. Reconciliation is a two way streak. If it does indeed include the reprobate, then could this mean that Punishment could have been even WORSE?

Here's another question could reconciliation be fulfilled if there are people in hell cursing God?

What do you think?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think one of the clearest arguments against "Hell as eternal conscious torment" being the position on Hell from a Christian perspective is the fact that this was never the case historically. Historically views on Hell have always been diverse, and have always remained diverse. The "eternal conscious torment" position is one that had some traction, especially in the medieval West, but it has never been the universal, or even the majority, position of the Christian Church; the reality is that the Church has never defined Hell in an authoritative manner; none of the Ecumenical Councils or the Creeds offer a definitive position on the nature and significance of Hell. And Scripture speaks almost nothing on the subject beyond the occasional statement and does so using graphic, and in some cases, explicitly figurative language (e.g. the lake of fire as mentioned in St. John's Apocalypse). The ambiguity of Scripture and the seeming refusal of the Church to make anything resembling a definitive statement means that we should be very careful not to be dogmatic where neither Scripture nor the Church's received teaching has ever been dogmatic. This is why it is in keeping with the historic orthodoxy of the Church to say, "I hope and pray that all will be saved in the end, and that Hell will be found, ultimately, empty" but it is not orthodoxy to say "All will be saved, and Hell will be found empty." The former is a pious hope of the Church and remains orthodox, the latter becomes a dogmatic statement and is outside of the orthodox framework. Which is why "Hard" Universalism is heretical (or at least heterodox), while the hope of universal reconciliation, a "Soft" Universalism, isn't heretical, the hope of universal reconciliation or apokatastasis is a thoroughly orthodox position, but only as a pious hope; because we are forbidden to assert what God has not said.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tull]

I would like to question heaven theology,question one question the other since the same language is used to describe the duration of both.

 

[faroukfarouk]

So are you saying that the contrast between holiness and sin, which cannot enter heaven (Revelation 21.27) is supposedly not as clear cut?

 

[Tull]

I'm saying that both heaven and hell are spoken of as being eternal,both are described in detail how it will be to be there,but because people like and approve of one and not the other they wish to eliminate any unpleasant truths,itching ears to hear what makes them feel good.



The overall effect is the bible is seen as contradicting and not trustworthy,question some of it ? then question all of it.

 

[RaymondG]

I'm saying that both heaven and hell are spoken of as being eternal,both are described in detail how it will be to be there,but because people like and approve of one and not the other they wish to eliminate any unpleasant truths,itching ears to hear what makes them feel good.



The overall effect is the bible is seen as contradicting and not trustworthy,question some of it ? then question all of it.

The bible is very trustworthy......unfortunately, lawyers(woe to them) (the interpreters of the scriptures) arent.

 

[RaymondG]

I would like to question heaven theology,question one question the other since the same language is used to describe the duration of both.

Neither of the two can really be put into words that we understand.... So we use the best things and worse things imaginable at the time... Back then, living in a mansion on golden streets were the best, and being in fire the worse.

Today, if it were written (God forbid, because He only inspired writings 2k years ago and never will again???) Maybe the best would be bigger mansions with 200 women and nice cars, and the worse drowning, or falling forever, or being shot many times without dying.

But I believe we will all be very surprised to see what God has in store.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Could these passages indicate varying duration's in hell
2. Could these passages indicate punishments that are far less severe

Duration no, levels of intensity - perhaps. Heaven and hell are presented as opposing fates and frequently together in regards to eternal aspects. If Heaven has levels of reward, make sense Hell would have some concept of levels - whatever that really means we could only guess.

"The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

But if hell is what is primarily taught, wouldn't it have been better for everyone not saved to have never been born? Why make such a focus on a particular man if the common held belief people have today is true?

Yes, I would think it would be better to have not been born than to find oneself in Hell - the point made goes to 1) there are people that have a life that will be judged and sent to Hell - IOW Hell is not empty. 2) Hell is not pleasant for anyone.

Colossians 1:19

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

I wonder if this means that there is some sort of effect on the damned as well. Reconciliation is a two way streak. If it does indeed include the reprobate, then could this mean that Punishment could have been even WORSE?

Here's another question could reconciliation be fulfilled if there are people in hell cursing God?

What do you think?

Making everything right applies to every "thing", not just mankind and angles. All things "new" again. It also means God's Justice and His Wrath are done/complete.
A man or an angel that no longer has Good in them - as it has withdrawn from them (whatever and how ever that is done matters not) cannot sin anymore. Such creatures can no longer rebel against God. He has given them over to their own will - totally abandoned those humans so to speak to what they desired most in this life. Which means as a part of creation they no longer have a purpose for existing - which in itself is a horrible punishment. One should also wonder at how that anguish would transform them - to the extent some have suggested no longer resembling anything human - just "what remains" I think CS Lewis suggested.
As that punishment restores Justice and allows God's Wrath - it restores what is currently out of balance/wrong - so Hell would be that aspect of reconciliation - balancing the books of His Justice and Wrath so to speak.

A better and harder question perhaps, after all things are restored, how could anyone be eternally Happy with an awareness of the suffering in Hell?

 

[Shempster]

It is often believed that Hell is eternal conscious torment the likes of which is is either horribly excruciating pain or absolute darkness and separation from God with some sort of mental/spiritual decay.

I am here to argue that Hell and Judgement is more complicated then that. Or that the bible leaves room for possibilities which haven't been revealed through scripture.

I want you to ask yourselves two questions:

1. Could these passages indicate varying duration's in hell
2. Could these passages indicate punishments that are far less severe

Note: The center of this topic isn't to prove or disprove annihilation or conditionalism, but instead to see if the passages I will mention open up possibilities for Hell that are not within the realm of conventional thought.

Matthew 26:24

"The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

But if hell is what is primarily taught, wouldn't it have been better for everyone not saved to have never been born? Why make such a focus on a particular man if the common held belief people have today is true? Even if hell were different fire intensities the lowest flame level for eternity, that person would still be better off not ever being born.

Lets look at another verse.

Luke 17:2

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin."

Here we see that it would be better to die instantly than to sin more and go to hell with a greater sin. Waiting for judgement after death or in the real world..... which is preferable and again ...this verse may hint at more variation in hell and judgement as well.

Colossians 1:19

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

I wonder if this means that there is some sort of effect on the damned as well. Reconciliation is a two way streak. If it does indeed include the reprobate, then could this mean that Punishment could have been even WORSE?

Here's another question could reconciliation be fulfilled if there are people in hell cursing God?

What do you think?

You have been given revelation there, my friend. I think if people would study with an open mind instead of only looking for things that satisfy their pre-concieved notions that they could find hundreds of verses that dispel the myth of eternal torture.
First, nobody is going to a hell of eternal torture. Not even Hitler. Literally no one. Our creator would never do that to His own creation. In fact, He says he would never even conceive of something like that (Jeremiah 19:5)
Yes, there is speak of death and the lake of fire, but that is only for the wood, hay and stubble. Practically, that is an analogy for evil desires and the love of the world. Those things will be purged out of you. Like boiling gold removes impurities. If your whole life is about material things and pleasure then you would "die" in a sense if it was all taken from you.
On the other side, if you are a spiritual person who loves God and all others and who has little love for the world, then you won't be affected if those things are taken from you and destroyed.
So the lake of fire would be torture (in a sense) for the worldly but the spiritual folks will not be harmed.

Does that make any sense?

I promise you. God will eventually restore every one of His creations to Himself. It will be a long, hard road for those who continue to rebel, but those who respond to His Divine Love will avoid all of that.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You have been given revelation there, my friend. I think if people would study with an open mind instead of only looking for things that satisfy their pre-concieved notions that they could find hundreds of verses that dispel the myth of eternal torture.
First, nobody is going to a hell of eternal torture. Not even Hitler. Literally no one. Our creator would never do that to His own creation. In fact, He says he would never even conceive of something like that (Jeremiah 19:5)
Yes, there is speak of death and the lake of fire, but that is only for the wood, hay and stubble. Practically, that is an analogy for evil desires and the love of the world. Those things will be purged out of you. Like boiling gold removes impurities. If your whole life is about material things and pleasure then you would "die" in a sense if it was all taken from you.
On the other side, if you are a spiritual person who loves God and all others and who has little love for the world, then you won't be affected if those things are taken from you and destroyed.
So the lake of fire would be torture (in a sense) for the worldly but the spiritual folks will not be harmed.

Does that make any sense?

I promise you. God will eventually restore every one of His creations to Himself. It will be a long, hard road for those who continue to rebel, but those who respond to His Divine Love will avoid all of that.

It is a nice thought, that all will be saved. We pray that it would be so. Neither He or the Apostles spoke like it would be so, so am not sure why we should think it has to be so.

Simply removing the things from the "worldly" that they loved cannot restore Justice or demonstrate His Wrath at what they have done in this life. God is Just and His Wrath is righteous. His Love and Mercy do not diminish or get diminished by other aspects of His Nature. He is Love and Mercy whether any of us are saved or not. We cannot agree that God needs us all to love Him or that He needs anything for that matter.

 

[alex2165]

Subject of hell is very important subject as in Old Testament as well in New and very well described and explained. Denying existence of Hell would be equivalent to denying Heaven or even existence of GOD, because they are all interconnected and relate to one another directly.

Taking only pleasant parts of the Bible and discarding unpleasant is a very common way many “Christians” use to convince themselves that no matter what and no matter how much they sin in their life, they surely will be saved. Such attitude belongs only to fools.

They read Bible with the “scissors,” cutting out the places which disturb them ignoring the truth, and accepting only those places what pleases them. But no matter what such people do to the Bible, the reality of things and consequences of sin will remain the same and unchanged.

Ignoring the existence of Hell and eternal punishment and declaring that nobody body goes to Hell, because Hell is just someone’s imagination, metaphor, idiom, or just a symbolism, “myth” or just “words” such position undermining the Sacrifice of Christ, because if “everybody saved” and go to Heaven no matter what kind of life a person lived on Earth, when it was no reason for Christ to come down to Earth in human flesh, suffer for humanity, and dying by violent death on the cross.

And why we should even read and study Bible and be good as GOD wants us to be, if we would be saved anyway and all go to Heaven?

I heard many times such argument that Christ died for all sinners and for their sin, and so everybody is saved now and will go to Heaven.

The question then will be: “Did Christ died even for those who never believed in GOD, ignored Him all their life, did evil, never repented and never asked for forgiveness of sins? Do such people also covered by the Sacrifice of Christ and will share Heaven with those who had faith in the Lord and lived according to His Statutes and His commandments, many of whom also did many sacrifices and suffer for the name of the Lord?

If answer “Yes” then I would say that you should take with you to Heaven your locks, security system, weapons if you have, you dog that trained to guard your home, and live in Heaven in fear of being robbed, beaten, or killed, just like on Earth.

If evil and goodness are not separated, when the life in Heaven will be similar to the life on Earth.

We here on Earth separate criminals from society by putting them into prison, and the same thing is also done in Heaven in Hell.

Those who ignore Hell questioning GOD’S justice, His righteousness, and His fairness, and do not know the truth.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

And they undermine/question His righteous Wrath against sin.

 

[SnowyMacie]

It is often believed that Hell is eternal conscious torment the likes of which is is either horribly excruciating pain or absolute darkness and separation from God with some sort of mental/spiritual decay.

I am here to argue that Hell and Judgement is more complicated then that. Or that the bible leaves room for possibilities which haven't been revealed through scripture.

I want you to ask yourselves two questions:

1. Could these passages indicate varying duration's in hell
2. Could these passages indicate punishments that are far less severe

Note: The center of this topic isn't to prove or disprove annihilation or conditionalism, but instead to see if the passages I will mention open up possibilities for Hell that are not within the realm of conventional thought.

Matthew 26:24

"The Son of Man goes as it is written of him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been better for that man if he had not been born.”

But if hell is what is primarily taught, wouldn't it have been better for everyone not saved to have never been born? Why make such a focus on a particular man if the common held belief people have today is true? Even if hell were different fire intensities the lowest flame level for eternity, that person would still be better off not ever being born.

Lets look at another verse.

Luke 17:2

"It would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck and he were cast into the sea than that he should cause one of these little ones to sin."

Here we see that it would be better to die instantly than to sin more and go to hell with a greater sin. Waiting for judgement after death or in the real world..... which is preferable and again ...this verse may hint at more variation in hell and judgement as well.

Colossians 1:19

"For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross."

I wonder if this means that there is some sort of effect on the damned as well. Reconciliation is a two way streak. If it does indeed include the reprobate, then could this mean that Punishment could have been even WORSE?

Here's another question could reconciliation be fulfilled if there are people in hell cursing God?

What do you think?

I don't see Hell as much as a punishment for sin so much as the result of what happens when a person completely and totally rejects the love of God. I personally believe that the unsaved will be tormented by being in the presence of God because while unable (willing or not, I'm a bit unsure as to which is true) accept God's love, thus being in communion and fellowship with him. In other words, the saved and unsaved are in the presence of God; to the righteous, it is comfort, to the wicked, agony. This ultimate, deep, and complete rejection of God's love and desire to be in communion with him causes humans to stop being image of God, and I believe it will result in them become less and less human to the point they ultimately destroy themselves.

 

[Rubiks]

I would like to question heaven theology,question one question the other since the same language is used to describe the duration of both.

Well, the culture of 1st century Judaism generally perceived time as going in a circle rather than in a line. (Thus, why the writers of the Bible draw parallels between the life of Jesus and the prophets of the Old Testament)

Just food for thought

 

[ViaCrucis]

I would like to question heaven theology,question one question the other since the same language is used to describe the duration of both.

The Bible never talks about Christians going to heaven for eternity, it actually never talks about going to heaven at all if one wants to get technical.

But, yes, the word aionios is used to describe the state of the wicked as well as the life which the redeemed have/shall have in/from Christ.

The issue, of course, depends largely on how we understand the word aionios and how it is used. While translated as "eternal" or "everlasting" in English, it is complicated by the fact that this is an attempted and interpretive approximation--there is no direct translation in English; it is the adjective form of the word aion, meaning "age". It would, from what I understand (and I could be wrong) that, for example Matthew 18:8 has
τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον, the adjective is in the genitive singular, "the fire of the age" would possibly be an accurate rendering; that is the primary meaning isn't the duration of the fire, but rather it is the fire which belongs to a particular age, considering the eschatological nature of such language that it is referring to the future Judgment and, therefore, the future age seems like a fairly good assessment to make. Likewise, the same phrase--τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον--is found in Matthew 25:41, and the phrase κόλασιν αἰώνιον in verse 46 of the same. That would also mean that such a rendering would also fit in regard to what kind of life we are promised, ζωὴν αἰώνιον (Matthew 25:46, John 3:16, et al), "life of the age"--that is the life which belongs and is part of that future age. The question of duration is therefore not answered immediately by the use of aionios/aionion, but rather the question of duration would be deduced by other factors, for example of that future life it is the life of the resurrection of the body, wherein "this mortal must put on immortality", "Where O Death is your sting?" etc; this is much easier in regard to the future resurrection life because it is specifically stated to be immortal, incorruptible, and the reality of death's total defeat, "the last enemy to be defeated is death" at Christ's coming in glory. The question of the duration of the future state of the wicked is not so clear, and there has never been a final, definitive position taken in Christianity. Advocates of universal reconciliation (e.g. St. Gregory of Nyssa) and advocates of perpetualism (e.g. St. Augustine) both exist as part of the Church's ancient and received tradition.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[DrBubbaLove]

The Bible never talks about Christians going to heaven for eternity, it actually never talks about going to heaven at all if one wants to get technical.

But, yes, the word aionios is used to describe the state of the wicked as well as the life which the redeemed have/shall have in/from Christ.

The issue, of course, depends largely on how we understand the word aionios and how it is used. While translated as "eternal" or "everlasting" in English, it is complicated by the fact that this is an attempted and interpretive approximation--there is no direct translation in English; it is the adjective form of the word aion, meaning "age". It would, from what I understand (and I could be wrong) that, for example Matthew 18:8 has
τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον, the adjective is in the genitive singular, "the fire of the age" would possibly be an accurate rendering; that is the primary meaning isn't the duration of the fire, but rather it is the fire which belongs to a particular age, considering the eschatological nature of such language that it is referring to the future Judgment and, therefore, the future age seems like a fairly good assessment to make. Likewise, the same phrase--τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον--is found in Matthew 25:41, and the phrase κόλασιν αἰώνιον in verse 46 of the same. That would also mean that such a rendering would also fit in regard to what kind of life we are promised, ζωὴν αἰώνιον (Matthew 25:46, John 3:16, et al), "life of the age"--that is the life which belongs and is part of that future age. The question of duration is therefore not answered immediately by the use of aionios/aionion, but rather the question of duration would be deduced by other factors, for example of that future life it is the life of the resurrection of the body, wherein "this mortal must put on immortality", "Where O Death is your sting?" etc; this is much easier in regard to the future resurrection life because it is specifically stated to be immortal, incorruptible, and the reality of death's total defeat, "the last enemy to be defeated is death" at Christ's coming in glory. The question of the duration of the future state of the wicked is not so clear, and there has never been a final, definitive position taken in Christianity. Advocates of universal reconciliation (e.g. St. Gregory of Nyssa) and advocates of perpetualism (e.g. St. Augustine) both exist as part of the Church's ancient and received tradition.

-CryptoLutheran

I think finding a dissenting opinion among a few early Church leaders is not a proof that there was agreement with that opinion of all or even a larger number of people holding up the tradition from those leaders. It is also not true that there has been no definitive position taken on whether all WILL be saved, as many brands of faith have long ago claimed definitively that such is heresy. Many of those same folks do stand on the hope that all MAY be saved - but that is not the same thing.
Maintaining that hope does not diminish either our human freedom or our responsibility as humans. Conversely saying all WILL be saved degrades both.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think finding a dissenting opinion among a few early Church leaders is not a proof that there was agreement with that opinion of all or even a larger number of people holding up the tradition from those leaders. It is also not true that there has been no definitive position taken on whether all WILL be saved, as many brands of faith have long ago claimed definitively that such is heresy. Many of those same folks do stand on the hope that all MAY be saved - but that is not the same thing.
Maintaining that hope does not diminish either our human freedom or our responsibility as humans. Conversely saying all WILL be saved degrades both.

I wasn't suggesting that dogmatic universalism was orthodox--it's not--but that there is in fact no single, monolithic position agreed upon historically on hell, beyond the reality of hell itself.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Tull]

I guess we will all die and find out

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I wasn't suggesting that dogmatic universalism was orthodox--it's not--but that there is in fact no single, monolithic position agreed upon historically on hell, beyond the reality of hell itself.

-CryptoLutheran

I see. Good.
So you agree some branches of Christianity have and still do hold to universalism as being a heresy.

And that agreement makes sense as it would be difficult seeing the language of Hell as much of a real threat if it were not eternal. Such a belief on the torment of Hell ending compared to other beliefs also gives mankind the widest range of and incentive for our offenses. Assuming human freedom is a given, the belief also makes God somewhat dependent on human impulsiveness.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I see. Good.
So you agree some branches of Christianity have and still do hold to universalism as being a heresy.

And that agreement makes sense as it would be difficult seeing the language of Hell as much of a real threat if it were not eternal. Such a belief on the torment of Hell ending compared to other beliefs also gives mankind the widest range of and incentive for our offenses. Assuming human freedom is a given, the belief also makes God somewhat dependent on human impulsiveness.

I believe dogmatic universalism to be heterodox; but it is in keeping with orthodoxy to hope for the reconciliation of all and/or that Hell is--ultimately--empty. Such a pious hope is recognized in both the East and the West.

-CryptoLutheran