Re-Thinking Hell

[wendykvw]

Well you would need to view it with a lense of some sort I guess, it challenges your position otherwise.

A lens that God somehow can not or will not salvage all Satan destroyed? I will pass and will continue to view scripture through the lens that God is more than capable of redeeming all creation.

Well you would need to view it with a lense of some sort I guess, it challenges your position otherwise.

Paul and Christ consistently taught the spiritual pride of Israel. Romans 9 is in effect teaching that God can do as he chooses.

Well you would need to view it with a lense of some sort I guess, it challenges your position otherwise.

Paul taught universalism through out the epistles. Rather than read one chapter and form a theology around one chapter, it is best to compare scripture with scripture. Paul like Peter came to understand the inclusivity of the atonement. Both Calvinism and Arminianism limit the atonement, universalism does not. God is not limited in anyway and does as He chooses. As Paul confirms in Romans 9.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Paul talks several times about God's Wrath to come upon the disobedient.

Do you agree with this ???

If so how do you view it ?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

If the final state of most people is being in torment in the lake of fire, then sin is also eternal, it is somehow and bizarrely elevated to God status by this theology. Since God cannot destroy sin, it takes away from His power and sovereignty. It illustrates that God's plans are feeble that a mere creation can frustrate them by causing discord.

This is why I do not subscribe to the teaching of Eternal Torment, it refers to a God that is not the Father of Jesus, the son.

Ultimate reconciliation and Annihilationism are flip sides of the same coin.

I reserve the right to wait for something reflecting the majesty of God in it.

A good rule of thumb regarding this type of theology is, if it smells of "petty human" it's not true. It's okay if we don't know exactly what happens in the end, since the seasons the Father set in His power is not given to us to know anyway.

 

[Receivedgrace]

A lens that God somehow can not or will not salvage all Satan destroyed? I will pass and will continue to view scripture through the lens that God is more than capable of redeeming all creation.

Paul and Christ consistently taught the spiritual pride of Israel. Romans 9 is in effect teaching that God can do as he chooses.

Paul taught universalism through out the epistles. Rather than read one chapter and form a theology around one chapter, it is best to compare scripture with scripture. Paul like Peter came to understand the inclusivity of the atonement. Both Calvinism and Arminianism limit the atonement, universalism does not. God is not limited in anyway and does as He chooses. As Paul confirms in Romans 9.

It seems the same tactic that the serpent employed in the garden.
Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ge 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Quote the word of God and deflect it's meaning and intent.

2Ti 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;

Wishing it so don't make it so.

 

[ozso]

It seems the same tactic that the serpent employed in the garden.
Ge 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Ge 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:

Quote the word of God and deflect it's meaning and intent.

2Ti 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;

Wishing it so don't make it so.

But wendykvw wasn't taking about her personal wishing, she was talking about what Paul wrote.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I've heard/read good arguments from scripture which don't agree with that assessment.

So the burden would be on you to show how it is that when Scripture teaches Eternal Life through faith in Christ and Eternal Damnation for those Christ does not know and have rejected the Gospel—it is wrong and the arguments you feel to be better are right.

And you're not doing that. No universalist here is doing that.

Not a single one of you has bothered to address the responses to the improper proof-texting I have addressed.

If I explained how Mormonism works as I understand it, would that make me a devil's advocate for it? And no, I don't want to get into a protracted knock down drag out debate with you.

Yes, actually it would if you are also saying it is an acceptable means of relationship with God. You would be teaching people it is okay to embrace Mormonism and that it is acceptable in a Christian sphere.

And, you don't want to "get into a protracted knock-down drag-out debate" with me?

First, the responses I have given have been, in my view, given with respect and sincere concern for the eternal welfare of those who will come here and read these posts. If I view something to be error I am not going to apologize for calling it error, and I am not going to sugar-coat it because some people have nothing but emotion to bring to the table. It is a very serious issue. I view Universalism to be a destructive doctrine and seriously in conflict with what Scripture teaches. It can't be helped that some are going to think the terminology is harsh, but I view it simply as speaking truth. I support what I say with Scripture to make it clear I am not just providing an emotional opinion formulated in a pew somewhere.

Secondly, I don't see you debating at all. A debate consists of both sides presenting views and both sides addressing the views of the antagonist. That isn't being done. There is a difference between talking with someone (discussion) and talking at someone (lecturing).

Lastly, I appreciate the discussion on side issues, but the topic is about whether Scripture teaches an eternal existence of damnation, separation, torment, and torture for those who reject the will of God. Will you take a look at my posts and address them on a doctrinal level?

It is mentioned in this thread that (close quote) "People reading the same Book come to different conclusions and there is never any resolution." I agree. Why? Because the Doctrine of the Bible itself is ignored.

A "knock-down drag-out debate" is not necessary, lol, but in order for this to qualify as a debate there has to be a little more participation in addressing the doctrine that will bring a resolution on the matter. Maybe not for you, but for those who may read this thread without being involved.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

There are Baptists who are universalists. Along with those who are Catholic, Orthodox, and every other major Protestant denomination. They're able to believe in universalism without throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Okay, so let them go to a Baptist Fellowship and try to get a job as a minister. If they get the job—it's not a Baptist Fellowship.

There are a lot of fellowships that tack the name "Baptist" onto their name but that doesn't make them Baptist.

As far as people who attend Baptist fellowships, I'd agree, there are people that hold to non-Baptist beliefs. That is true of every denomination. Most people would fail a pop-quiz on the Doctrinal Distinctives of the fellowship they attend.

So when someone changes their identity with the Baptist Faith and claims the name "Restoration minister" it is pretty obvious they have departed from the Baptist Faith and teachings. They now identify with a group that most Baptists would reject. At least at a leadership level.

A Mormon that rejects the idea that men will become gods and the teachings and writings of Joseph Smith isn't really a Mormon. Right?

This is why there are so many different denominations: because of the distinctive doctrines of the group. While most agree on what would be viewed essential Bible Doctrines, the distinctives separate them and a new denomination/sect/cult is created.

God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Why couldn't someone hold to Baptist doctrine, without believing in eternal conscious torment?

Because they wouldn't be holding to Baptist Doctrine, lol.

God bless.

 

[ozso]

Because they wouldn't be holding to Baptist Doctrine, lol

Explain how lol.

 

[ozso]

Okay, so let them go to a Baptist Fellowship and try to get a job as a minister. If they get the job—it's not a Baptist Fellowship.

There are a lot of fellowships that tack the name "Baptist" onto their name but that doesn't make them Baptist.

As far as people who attend Baptist fellowships, I'd agree, there are people that hold to non-Baptist beliefs. That is true of every denomination. Most people would fail a pop-quiz on the Doctrinal Distinctives of the fellowship they attend.

So when someone changes their identity with the Baptist Faith and claims the name "Restoration minister" it is pretty obvious they have departed from the Baptist Faith and teachings. They now identify with a group that most Baptists would reject. At least at a leadership level.

A Mormon that rejects the idea that men will become gods and the teachings and writings of Joseph Smith isn't really a Mormon. Right?

This is why there are so many different denominations: because of the distinctive doctrines of the group. While most agree on what would be viewed essential Bible Doctrines, the distinctives separate them and a new denomination/sect/cult is created.

Universalism is a side doctrine. There's no such thing, that I know of, as a Christian unversalist church. Unversalists go to ordinary church and prefer it that way. They usually agree on most of if not every aspect of doctrine and statement of faith that church / denomination holds to except the final outcome of the wicked. You seem out to imply that they're lesser Christians than others based on one eschatological side doctrine.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Congratulations, this has been the contention between Protestants and Catholics for a very long time.

And if you think that justifies numerous interpretations you are mistaken.

The error of both Catholics and Protestants have to be presented and addressed to see why one group or the other is in error.

I'll give you something to think about: The Reformation has as one of it's biggest issues the Doctrine of Justification. Catholics say men are justified by faith and works, James makes that clear. Protestants say, "No, Paul makes it clear in Romans 4 that Abraham was justified by faith alone."

Both are right.

Both are wrong.

Why? Because neither is placing their proof texts in a proper context. Both Romans 4 and James 2 are temporal contexts, and just as Zechariah and Elizabeth were justified in a temporal context (Luke 1:5-6)—even so Paul and James speak of Temporal Justification.

If you want Justification in an eternal context, flip back one page to Romans 3.

In Modern Christendom most people who try to debate this issue say the word justification but impose a meaning of Eternal Redemption into it. So what is debated today is, Catholic: men are eternally redeemed by faith and works; Protestant: men are eternally redeemed by faith alone.

Both are wrong.

Man is only Eternally redeemed through the Offering of Christ, and man only receives Eternal Life through faith in Christ.

So when you teach men that it is not necessary to believe in Jesus Christ, His Offering of Himself, His Resurrection, and the need for Regeneration—you make void the Gospel of Jesus Christ which has been God's central message to Man since the Garden.

And while I do believe men can still be temporally justified and just might make it into the Eternal State, that is not the command we have received as Christians:


Matthew 28:18-20
King James Version

18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:

20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.


And it is incontrovertible that Christ taught two fates for mankind: the resurrection unto life, and the resurrection unto damnation.

There will be those who will not be found written in the Book of Life and they are cast into the Lake of Fire. There is nothing in Scripture that teaches this fate is reversed.

Our duty to the lost is to bring them the truth of their condition and the only remedy for that condition. And that remedy is Jesus Christ—alone.


God bless.

 

[ozso]

So the burden would be on you to show how it is that when Scripture teaches Eternal Life through faith in Christ and Eternal Damnation for those Christ does not know and have rejected the Gospel—it is wrong and the arguments you feel to be better are right.

And you're not doing that. No universalist here is doing that.

Not a single one of you has bothered to address the responses to the improper proof-texting I have addressed.




Yes, actually it would if you are also saying it is an acceptable means of relationship with God. You would be teaching people it is okay to embrace Mormonism and that it is acceptable in a Christian sphere.

And, you don't want to "get into a protracted knock-down drag-out debate" with me?

First, the responses I have given have been, in my view, given with respect and sincere concern for the eternal welfare of those who will come here and read these posts. If I view something to be error I am not going to apologize for calling it error, and I am not going to sugar-coat it because some people have nothing but emotion to bring to the table. It is a very serious issue. I view Universalism to be a destructive doctrine and seriously in conflict with what Scripture teaches. It can't be helped that some are going to think the terminology is harsh, but I view it simply as speaking truth. I support what I say with Scripture to make it clear I am not just providing an emotional opinion formulated in a pew somewhere.

Secondly, I don't see you debating at all. A debate consists of both sides presenting views and both sides addressing the views of the antagonist. That isn't being done. There is a difference between talking with someone (discussion) and talking at someone (lecturing).

Lastly, I appreciate the discussion on side issues, but the topic is about whether Scripture teaches an eternal existence of damnation, separation, torment, and torture for those who reject the will of God. Will you take a look at my posts and address them on a doctrinal level?

It is mentioned in this thread that (close quote) "People reading the same Book come to different conclusions and there is never any resolution." I agree. Why? Because the Doctrine of the Bible itself is ignored.

A "knock-down drag-out debate" is not necessary, lol, but in order for this to qualify as a debate there has to be a little more participation in addressing the doctrine that will bring a resolution on the matter. Maybe not for you, but for those who may read this thread without being involved.

The problem is you've made a barrage of lengthy challenge posts, rather than taking it one step at a time. You buried the "opposition" before you even got started. I suggest trying briefer exchanges and tackling one issue or verse at a time, instead of throwing the whole kitchen sink at someone. The bottom line for me personally is I don't have enough time to devote to the humongous amount of stuff you've posted.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Explain how lol.

I just did.

The burden is on you to show why what I said is in error.

God bless.

 

[ozso]

.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Universalism is a side doctrine.

No, it is not a "side doctrine." It is a Major Doctrine.

The fate of mankind is one of the biggest issues in Scripture.

There's no such thing, that I know of, as a Christian unversalist church.

Maybe you should do a little more research on the groups you are defending.

Try Wikipedia.

Unversalists go to ordinary church and prefer it that way.

I wonder why someone that rejects the teaching of the fellowship they go to would remain going to that fellowship.

Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I would not remain in a fellowship that taught what I viewed to be heresy. Staying in a fellowship that teaches contrary to your beliefs on such a major doctrine would indicate, sorry, that what you believe is not especially important. Nor what your family is being taught is especially important.

They usually agree on most of if not every aspect of doctrine and statement of faith that church / denomination holds to except the final outcome of the wicked.

So why not go to a fellowship that teaches universalism?

You seem out to imply that you're more of a Christian than others based on one eschatological side doctrine.

So you attack me personally instead of simply addressing the doctrine I have presented as well as the responses I have given to what I view to be erroneous doctrine?

There is no such thing as someone being "more of a Christian," because a Christian is someone that is born again. All Christians are at differing stages of maturity and differing stages of understanding.

Now, if you want to change that to I think I am better at debating the doctrine, well, I would go along with that.



But I didn't say it—you did. lol

All I am trying to do is get you or one of the other universalists to actually debate the Scripture that our views are based on. Again—you aren't doing that.

No one is.

It's just a bunch of opinions fueled by emotional desires having a total lack of basis in Scripture.

This is why you resort to personal attacks.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

The problem is you've made a barrage of lengthy challenge posts, rather than taking it one step at a time.

On the contrary, the posts are lengthy because I addressed them in detail and broke them up to make it easier to address one point at a time.

They are short in my view.

I addressed an extremely long post but I don't see you complaining about the length of your comrade.

Why is that?

You buried the "opposition" before you even got started.

Hey, thanks! I agree, I did bury them. Not hard to do seeing they(and you) have not a Scriptural leg to stand on.

I suggest trying briefer exchanges and tackling one issue or verse at a time, instead of throwing the whole kitchen sink at someone.

I did that. Had you bothered to read the posts you would have seen that.

Just pick a post, any post, and try doctrinal discussion for a change. It may be that your current position might not last that long.

Of course, if your mind is made up and what Scripture has to say isn't going to change that...

The bottom line for me personally is I don't have enough time to devote to the humongous amount of stuff you've posted.

You have enough time to play devil's advocate for a doctrinal position you cannot support and encourage others to embrace your beliefs—but you don't have time to actually discuss the topic of discussion?

Can you tell me why you are interacting in a Doctrinal Debate in the first place?


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

.

?

 

[Lazarus Short]

All I am trying to do is get you or one of the other universalists to actually debate the Scripture that our views are based on. Again—you aren't doing that.

No one is.

It's just a bunch of opinions fueled by emotional desires having a total lack of basis in Scripture.

God bless.

From my POV, adherents of the "hell" theory cling to a bare handful of proof texts that they recycle over and over, while the overall theme of the Scriptures is the complete salvation of all mankind. Further, they take those texts from ONE version they rarely name, as if it is the One And Only Word Of God, but I can easily post a list of dozens of Bible versions which do not mention "hell" at all. I can also provide dozens of texts which indicate UR to be the correct theory. I can play proof-text ping pong all day, OR I can engage in a respectful dialogue and exploration of universalism.

To begin, here is a distillation, with Bible references, of my own 2+ years investigating "hell" and related matters:

1. There is no mention of Hell in God’s Creation of the Cosmos - therefore, Hell is apparently uncreated by God or anyone else. See Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 65:17, Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5. John 1:3 explicitly states that God made all, and that no other person or agency made anything. The Bible contains many instances of “heaven and earth” paired together as a term…without “hell.” You will look in vain for “heaven and hell” or “earth and hell.”

2. In the first chapter of Genesis, it is stated seven times that God saw that what He had made was good, excluding Hell as being possible, as the Creation could not have been wholly good had Hell been in existence. See Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31.

3. The Creation as described in Genesis is properly understood as a hierarchy, not a dualistic Heaven versus Hell – with the Earth and humans as a contested prize, fought over by God and Satan. See Genesis 1:1, Job 1 & 2, John 1:3, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 5:13.

4. God made both good and evil, for the same Hand that planted the Tree of Life surely also planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, Satan did not make or create evil. See Genesis 2:9, Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, Amos 3:6.

5. The Bible makes no connection between Satan and Hell, so Satan is NOT the Prince of Hell. See Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2, Zechariah 3:1-2, Revelation 2:13, 12:9.

6. The prince of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 is not Satan, as it specifically refers to him as a man. See Ezekiel 26 - 28.

7. The Law God gave to Moses warned of death, but did not specify punishment in Hell, or warn of it. Punishments were delivered in the real world, and the most severe was simple, ordinary death. See Genesis 2:17, Exodus through Deuteronomy, Romans 6:23.

8. Nearly all the consequences of human disobedience to God are worked out in the real, here-and-now world – not in Hell. This includes death, destruction, perishing, God’s wrath and His cursings. See Deuteronomy 28:15-68, 30:19, Ezekiel 32:32, Romans 13:4. The only exception is the banishment of the unrighteous to the Lake of Fire – but that is for their ultimate salvation, otherwise Death cannot be defeated and God cannot become All in all...as we see in I Corinthians 15.

9. All people die, but none of them go to Eternal Conscious Torment – only to the grave or pit. See every instance of personal death in the Bible, with “hell” (if present) properly replaced with “sheol” or “hades,” as so often noted in the marginal or center-column reference. Keep in mind that “Hades” is a concept from pagan Greek mythology, just like the name of its ruling “god.”

10. For the Hebrews, “sheol,” hidden, covered and unknown, was the state, condition or place of the dead. It was where the body returned to the dust and the spirit returned to God (Who gave it). See Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7.

11. Eternal Conscious Torment depends on the concept of the Immortality of the Soul, and that comes, not from the Bible, but from Greek philosophy, from Socrates and Plato. It is clearly pagan.

12. Hell, by definition, opposes the Gospel (the Good News) because Hell can only be Bad News for those sent there – and thus, for most of living (and dead) humanity.

13. Hell violates God’s Law, specifically the Law of the Jubilee, which sets all those in servitude free. Those who die are freed from sin, as prophesied by the Law of the Jubilee. See Leviticus 25:8-13, Isaiah 1:18, Romans 6:7,16.

14. The idea of damnation of people to Hell is at least absurd, and possibly blasphemous, due to the presence of God’s Spirit of Life in each of us. See Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7,3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7.

15. Hell, like Babylon, is confusion. Hell is hot, but it’s also cold as…Hell. Hell is bright with fire, but it is dark. Hell is separation from God, but Mary K Baxter depicts Jesus touring Hell, chiding the damned. To go to Hell, you must be dead, but to be in Eternal Conscious Torment, you must be alive, but you’re dead, and on and on… Fictional descriptions of Hell, especially as seen in the works of Dante, Milton and Baxter, are clearly fictional and un-Biblical.

16. God’s plan for the wicked is to destroy their wickedness, not to destroy them or send them to Hell. See Psalm 1:6, 7:9, Isaiah 1:18, Jeremiah 3:12, Habakkuk 1:12, Philippians 3:21, Hebrews 10:26-27.

17. God speaks of ransoming/redeeming ALL from death and the grave – without exception. See Psalm 49:15, Ezekiel 16:55, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 1:10.

18. God is both willing AND able to save all. Given that He is omnipotent, we can ALL look forward with confidence to our eventual salvation. See Psalm 49:15, 86:13, 103:8-14, 136, Isaiah 1:18, 6:7, 25:7-8, 26:19, 33:24, 43:25, 44:22, 45:8, 55:8-9, 57:16, 64:6-9, Jeremiah 3:12. Lamentations 3:26-32, Ezekiel 11:19, 16:55, Hosea 13:14, Micah 4:5, 7:18-19, Ephesians 1:10, Philipians 3:21, Colossians 1:19-20, I Thessalonians 1:10, I Timothy 1:15, 2:4-6, 4:10, 6:13, II Peter 3:9.

19. God compares Himself to a cleansing or refining agent – usually as Fire, but sometimes as Soap. Therefore, all instances of supernatural fire should be interpreted as being for refining and/or purification, not damnation. Fire in the Bible is never “Hellfire,” but natural fire or God’s Fire. See Malachi 3:2-3, Matthew 3:10-12, I Corinthians 3:15.

20. If God’s Fire is for baptism and refining, then that which is burned must be our carnal, sinful nature. It is symbolized by unfruitful trees, tares, chaff, wood, hay and stubble – by anything unable to endure the Fire. See Matthew 3:10-12, I Corinthians 3:11-15.

21. “Hell” is used in the King James Version (and others) to replace four other words: “Sheol,” “Hades,” “Gehenna” and “Tartarus.” None of these refer to a place of damnation or Eternal Conscious Torment. See any decent dictionary, especially the Oxford English Dictionary.

22. When we dig out mistranslations and peel away misinterpretations, we find that Hell is an imposition, an insertion into the text. With Hell so deconstructed, the Bible and God are both silent on Hell. See Numbers 23:19, John 14:2. With that out of the way, we can see clear to the salvation of all.

23. Christians should not follow the Hell of the ancient, pagan religions, such as the “Hel” we find in Norse mythology, but follow the truth of God’s Word, which does not contain either the concept of Hell or even the word “hell,” except in imperfect translations.

 

[Der Alte]

I lean more towards annihilation, with a hope all will be redeemed. Ultimately I trust my Lord to do what's right, however exactly that pans out.
According to the Bible lots of stuff happens after death.

I would like to see 1 vs. 2 or more would be better where someone gets saved after death.

 

[Der Alte]

From my POV, adherents of the "hell" theory cling to a bare handful of proof texts that they recycle over and over, while the overall theme of the Scriptures is the complete salvation of all mankind. Further, they take those texts from ONE version they rarely name, as if it is the One And Only Word Of God, but I can easily post a list of dozens of Bible versions which do not mention "hell" at all. I can also provide dozens of texts which indicate UR to be the correct theory. I can play proof-text ping pong all day, OR I can engage in a respectful dialogue and exploration of universalism.

To begin, here is a distillation, with Bible references, of my own 2+ years investigating "hell" and related matters:

1. There is no mention of Hell in God’s Creation of the Cosmos - therefore, Hell is apparently uncreated by God or anyone else. See Genesis 1:1, Isaiah 65:17, Jeremiah 7:31, 19:5. John 1:3 explicitly states that God made all, and that no other person or agency made anything. The Bible contains many instances of “heaven and earth” paired together as a term…without “hell.” You will look in vain for “heaven and hell” or “earth and hell.”

2. In the first chapter of Genesis, it is stated seven times that God saw that what He had made was good, excluding Hell as being possible, as the Creation could not have been wholly good had Hell been in existence. See Genesis 1:4,10,12,18,21,25,31.

3. The Creation as described in Genesis is properly understood as a hierarchy, not a dualistic Heaven versus Hell – with the Earth and humans as a contested prize, fought over by God and Satan. See Genesis 1:1, Job 1 & 2, John 1:3, Philippians 2:10, Revelation 5:13.

4. God made both good and evil, for the same Hand that planted the Tree of Life surely also planted the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. Therefore, Satan did not make or create evil. See Genesis 2:9, Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38, Amos 3:6.

5. The Bible makes no connection between Satan and Hell, so Satan is NOT the Prince of Hell. See Job 1:6-7, 2:1-2, Zechariah 3:1-2, Revelation 2:13, 12:9.

6. The prince of Tyre in Ezekiel 28 is not Satan, as it specifically refers to him as a man. See Ezekiel 26 - 28.

7. The Law God gave to Moses warned of death, but did not specify punishment in Hell, or warn of it. Punishments were delivered in the real world, and the most severe was simple, ordinary death. See Genesis 2:17, Exodus through Deuteronomy, Romans 6:23.

8. Nearly all the consequences of human disobedience to God are worked out in the real, here-and-now world – not in Hell. This includes death, destruction, perishing, God’s wrath and His cursings. See Deuteronomy 28:15-68, 30:19, Ezekiel 32:32, Romans 13:4. The only exception is the banishment of the unrighteous to the Lake of Fire – but that is for their ultimate salvation, otherwise Death cannot be defeated and God cannot become All in all...as we see in I Corinthians 15.

9. All people die, but none of them go to Eternal Conscious Torment – only to the grave or pit. See every instance of personal death in the Bible, with “hell” (if present) properly replaced with “sheol” or “hades,” as so often noted in the marginal or center-column reference. Keep in mind that “Hades” is a concept from pagan Greek mythology, just like the name of its ruling “god.”

10. For the Hebrews, “sheol,” hidden, covered and unknown, was the state, condition or place of the dead. It was where the body returned to the dust and the spirit returned to God (Who gave it). See Genesis 3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7.

11. Eternal Conscious Torment depends on the concept of the Immortality of the Soul, and that comes, not from the Bible, but from Greek philosophy, from Socrates and Plato. It is clearly pagan.

12. Hell, by definition, opposes the Gospel (the Good News) because Hell can only be Bad News for those sent there – and thus, for most of living (and dead) humanity.

13. Hell violates God’s Law, specifically the Law of the Jubilee, which sets all those in servitude free. Those who die are freed from sin, as prophesied by the Law of the Jubilee. See Leviticus 25:8-13, Isaiah 1:18, Romans 6:7,16.

14. The idea of damnation of people to Hell is at least absurd, and possibly blasphemous, due to the presence of God’s Spirit of Life in each of us. See Genesis 1:26-27, 2:7,3:19, Ecclesiastes 12:7.

15. Hell, like Babylon, is confusion. Hell is hot, but it’s also cold as…Hell. Hell is bright with fire, but it is dark. Hell is separation from God, but Mary K Baxter depicts Jesus touring Hell, chiding the damned. To go to Hell, you must be dead, but to be in Eternal Conscious Torment, you must be alive, but you’re dead, and on and on… Fictional descriptions of Hell, especially as seen in the works of Dante, Milton and Baxter, are clearly fictional and un-Biblical.

16. God’s plan for the wicked is to destroy their wickedness, not to destroy them or send them to Hell. See Psalm 1:6, 7:9, Isaiah 1:18, Jeremiah 3:12, Habakkuk 1:12, Philippians 3:21, Hebrews 10:26-27.

17. God speaks of ransoming/redeeming ALL from death and the grave – without exception. See Psalm 49:15, Ezekiel 16:55, Romans 6:23, Ephesians 1:10.

18. God is both willing AND able to save all. Given that He is omnipotent, we can ALL look forward with confidence to our eventual salvation. See Psalm 49:15, 86:13, 103:8-14, 136, Isaiah 1:18, 6:7, 25:7-8, 26:19, 33:24, 43:25, 44:22, 45:8, 55:8-9, 57:16, 64:6-9, Jeremiah 3:12. Lamentations 3:26-32, Ezekiel 11:19, 16:55, Hosea 13:14, Micah 4:5, 7:18-19, Ephesians 1:10, Philipians 3:21, Colossians 1:19-20, I Thessalonians 1:10, I Timothy 1:15, 2:4-6, 4:10, 6:13, II Peter 3:9.

19. God compares Himself to a cleansing or refining agent – usually as Fire, but sometimes as Soap. Therefore, all instances of supernatural fire should be interpreted as being for refining and/or purification, not damnation. Fire in the Bible is never “Hellfire,” but natural fire or God’s Fire. See Malachi 3:2-3, Matthew 3:10-12, I Corinthians 3:15.

20. If God’s Fire is for baptism and refining, then that which is burned must be our carnal, sinful nature. It is symbolized by unfruitful trees, tares, chaff, wood, hay and stubble – by anything unable to endure the Fire. See Matthew 3:10-12, I Corinthians 3:11-15.

21. “Hell” is used in the King James Version (and others) to replace four other words: “Sheol,” “Hades,” “Gehenna” and “Tartarus.” None of these refer to a place of damnation or Eternal Conscious Torment. See any decent dictionary, especially the Oxford English Dictionary.

22. When we dig out mistranslations and peel away misinterpretations, we find that Hell is an imposition, an insertion into the text. With Hell so deconstructed, the Bible and God are both silent on Hell. See Numbers 23:19, John 14:2. With that out of the way, we can see clear to the salvation of all.

23. Christians should not follow the Hell of the ancient, pagan religions, such as the “Hel” we find in Norse mythology, but follow the truth of God’s Word, which does not contain either the concept of Hell or even the word “hell,” except in imperfect translations.

The same ol', same ol' repetitious collection of out-of-context proof texts.
That at some time or other there was a word "hel" or some permutation of that is some obscure Scandinavian country is completely irrelevant. "Hell" in German simply means bright. The opposite of "hell" is "dunkel", dark. So what?
I only need one verse, indisputable, spoken by Jesus, to show scripturally there is, in fact, "eternal punishment."

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”​

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and the 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18. Some mis/uninformed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.” However, that is an etymological fallacy. According to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
…..It is understood that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the Greek speaking EOB scholars, backed up by 2000 years +/- of Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of obsolete words which occur in the KJV and to translate them correctly.