The duration of hell and its purpose

[wendykvw]

Continued:

Dr. Thornton is the Director of Sacred Grounds Resource Center in Gloria Dei Church. He also works with an inner city ministry for at –risk youth in Philadelphia.

“We don't understand God's idea of justice. When we see a criminal, we look for punishment, retaliation, or revenge. When Jesus sees a criminal, he sees a child of God who is terribly lost. He looks for repentance, conversion, and transformation. Maya Angelou expresses this sentiment in her book wouldn’t Take Nothing for My Journey Now: While I know myself as a creation of God, I am also obliged to realize and remember that everyone else and everything else are also God's creation. This is particularly difficult for me when my mind falls upon the cruel person, the batterer, and the bigot. I would like to think that the mean-spirited were created by another force and under the aegis and direction of something other than my God. But since I believe that God created all things, I am not only constrained to know that the oppressor is a child of God, but also obliged to try to treat him or her as a child of God. “

 

[wendykvw]

Continued :

Martin Luther would change the face of Christianity by writing a 95 page theses.



“God forbid that I should limit the time of acquiring faith to the present life. In the depth of the Divine mercy, there may be an opportunity to win it in the future.

Martin Luther’s letter to Hanseu Von Rechenberg, 1522.

John Wesley the founder of Methodism. Wesley was in strong opposition to Calvin’s doctrine of totally depravity. Wesley believed in an Armenian approach to salvation.



“Beware you are not a fiery, persecuting enthusiast. Do not imagine that God has called you (just contrary to the spirit of Him you style your Master) to destroy men's lives, and not to save them. Never dream of forcing men into the ways of God. Think yourself, and let think. Use no constraint in matters of religion. Even those who are farthest out of the way never compel to come in by any other means than reason, truth, and love.”

The Works of the Reverend John Wesley, A. M. - Page 336


Carlton Pearson
Pentecostal Minister of a large and growing congregation lost everything he spent his life building. He was on the board of directors for Oral Roberts University. One day while sitting in his living room watching the news he began a conversation with God. The conversation is described in his book ‘The Gospel of Inclusion.'



“God, I do not know how you can sit on your throne there in heaven and let these poor people drop to the ground hungry, heartbroken, and lost and just randomly suck them into hell, thinking nothing of it, and be a ‘sovereign God’, not to mention a ‘God of love’. There was an eerie silence before I heard a voice respond within me: Is that what you think we’re doing, sucking them all into hell?

That’s’ what I’ve been taught, I responded angrily. And what would change that? They need to get saved so they can go to heaven, I answered confidently. And how would that happen? I responded, somebody needs to go over there and get them saved by preaching the Gospel to them. Well then, the voice resounded, if you really believe that, why don’t you put down your food and your baby , turn off your big-screen TV, and catch the first plane over there and get them saved?



I burst into an emotion mix of tears grief, compassion, shame, guilt and anger. Then I retorted, don’t out that guilt on me Lord. I’m doing the best I can! I can’t leave this little girl and boy you gave me. If you wanted me to do what you’ve just suggested, you should have made that clear to me before you gave me this family. I’m doing the best I can; besides, I can’t save this while world! Precisely, the voice responded. That’s what we already did. But these people don’t know it, and, regretfully, most of you who claim to be my followers don’t ‘believe it.”

“Torturing people forever is an action easier to associate with Satan than with God, measured by ordinary moral standards and/or by the Gospel.” Clark H. Pinnock ( four views of hell, pg.104). Clark supports the annihilation view.

 

[wendykvw]

Link to the academic conference that will debate the duration and different views of hell in 2022.

Rethinking Hell Conference – Evangelical Christian Conference on Hell

 

[wendykvw]

What do you think about the statement below?

Traditional Judaism teaches that after death our bodies go to the grave but our souls go before God to be judged. God, as He states in Scripture, is the only one who knows our motives as well as our works—God sees the heart, whereas man looks at the outside (1Samuel 16:7). Facing the only true Judge, we are assigned a place in heaven according to a merit system based on God’s accounting of all our actions and motives. Traditional Jewish thought is that only the very righteous go directly to heaven; all others must be cleansed of residual sin.

According to traditional Judaism, sins that were not cleansed prior to death are removed after death in a place called Sheol or Gehinnom (also spelled Gehinom and Gehenna).

Do Jews believe in hell? | GotQuestions.org

I don't know if this would interest you, but I think you are on a roll to look at what early Judaism believed about hell, punishment, etc. I did something similar, but have not looked further into it. The website that I found helpful is chabad.org.

This was just interesting to me looking into other religions' beliefs of hell. Buddhism really surprised me:
In ancient Buddhism, hell is a place of eternal torment but reformed this view with the belief that hell was emptied by a victorious Savior.


In Judaism some believe hell is temporal and the amount of time spent is limited to twelve months, if someone is extremely wicked, they will be annihilated. According to the rabbi @ chabad.org


In Islam hell is reserved for non-believers of Allah and their torment and suffering will last for eternity.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I have snipped a big portion here of your post to save space, shorten an already super long reply, and I do apologize. I have no problem if you are convinced of your position. And since you have brought up Church History, you may not have the full picture, but only the position that you are familiar with. It has been maybe 10 years ago I read this book and it had an interesting piece of information about the Lutheran position of post-mortem salvation. IF I still had the book I could share the contents, but I do recall that like many denominations they have a version of restoration to cover the topic of "what about those who never hear the gospel before they die. You might want to check that book out at your library. No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized - John Sanders

I have also come across a few Lutherans who have told me that Lutherans have a version of the restoration view. I have not asked them to expand, so I don't know where they are getting that from, but they are "universal restoration' friendly.

Just to inform those who do not know the restoration view, the belief and supports for the ultimate victory of Christ is not some 19th-century liberalism but is in fact, the views held by some of the earliest and greatest Church Fathers such as Clement of Alexandria (ca. 160-215 A.D.), Origen ( ca. 185-ca 251 A.D.), and Gregory of Nyssa (331/340-ca. 395 A.D.). These great men were not alone in their hope for universal salvation and an end to hell's punishments as others such as Gregory of Nazianzus (ca. 329-390 A.D.), Didymus the Blind (313-398 A.D.), Evagrius of Pontus (345-399 A.D.), Ambrose (339-397 A.D.), and Theodore of Mopsuestia (350 – ca 428-39 A.D.) shared in this belief in varying degrees.


It would again be a major surprise for most people to know that of the six theological schools known to exist in the first five centuries, one taught annihilationism, one taught eternal torment but the other four taught the restoration view. The church of Rome in the West position was that of eternal hell, and the Eastern Church's position was a limited duration in hell. This goes back to the Patristic church. Russian Orthodox Bishop today, Catholic Richard Rohr, Eastern Orthodox Brad Jersak, Evangelical Robin Parry and so many others are teachers today of Universal restoration. I will tell you that my husband and I have a universal restoration ministry and those who join our membership are mainly retired Pastors of all denominational lines. A new reformation is taking place. Martin Luther opened the way to question the status quo. Question the majority, they may not always be correct, much deception has saturated Christianity today via, seminaries, churches, books, etc. I do believe that if people knew more about Church history they would have a much different mindset.

What restoration teaches:

1. Sin will be punished (Deut 24:16; Isa 3:11; 13:11; Ezek 18:30; Rev 20:12-13)

The Bible is very clear that each of us will be accountable to God for our sins. Everyone will be punished fairly for what they’ve done here on earth. Patristic Universalism does not teach everyone avoids hell; it teaches everyone will eventually get to heaven. There will be punishment for those who deserve it; but this punishment has as its goal the reconciliation of the sinner.


2. Salvation comes only through faith in Christ (Acts 16:31; Rom 10:9; Eph 2:8; 1 Pet 1:5)

As soon as people hear the word restoration they immediately think you’re advocating pluralism. That may be true of other forms of universalism, but it’s not what the universalism of the early church taught. To be saved, everyone must receive Christ as their Lord and Savior; they cannot be saved apart from faith in Christ. The only difference from the traditional view is that death does not end a person’s chance to accept Christ.


3. God continues to evangelize to people even after they die (1 Chron 16:34; Isa 9:2; Matt 12:32; Rom 8:35-39; Eph 4:8-9; 1 Pet 3:18-20; 4:6)

The main problem with the traditional view – and one that has never been satisfactorily addressed – is how can one “accept Christ” if they have never heard of Christ, or were unable to understand the message (i.e. too young, mentally handicapped, etc.). The traditional view seems much less appalling when viewed from the balcony of Middle America where there is a church on nearly every corner and Bibles available in multiple translations. But this is not the experience of many people in the world. Many struggle from day-to-day just to get enough to eat. To suggest they will spend eternity in hell because they didn’t stop and “accept Christ” to me is ludicrous. Given the environment most people live in throughout the world, a belief in post-mortem evangelism is the only view that makes sense. After all, didn’t Paul tell us that Christ is the God of both the living and the dead (Rom 14:9)?


4. Everyone will be judged when they die (Psalm 62:12; Prov 24:12; Eccl 3:17; 12:18; Jer 17:10; Matt 12:36; 16:27; Rom 2:16; 14:10-12; 1 Cor 3:10-15; 2 Cor 5:10; Rev 20:12-13)

No honest believer would suggest they were perfect here on earth and if that’s true, how can we say any of us are ready for heaven? We will all come before God with much “wood, hay, and straw” (1 Cor 3:12) that will need to be “burned up” (v. 15) prior to entering through heaven’s gates. The problem I see with modern evangelism is the idea that once someone has said the “sinner’s prayer,” they believe they are immune from all punishment which can result in a lazy faith – the kind of faith that produces indifference to others and apathy about one’s own spiritual health. So contrary to the popular view that universalism minimizes or completely eliminates judgment for sin, it actually takes a stronger stance than the traditional view by taking the passages seriously that discuss the believer’s accountability to God. What this means to the believer in terms of the type of punishment nobody knows. All I can say for sure is that there will be a process of removing the dross from the silver for every person.


5. The purpose of hell is remedial not retributive (1 Chron 21:13; Prov 3:12; Isa 19:22; Heb 12:7-11; Rev 3:19)

Closely linked with the belief that all will be saved is the understanding that the purpose of hell is remedial. Rather than simply a place where non-believers are discarded and forgotten, hell actually serves the purpose of helping to bring about reconciliation with God. This means that even “believers” might spend some time in the purifying fires of hell to prepare them for heaven by removing any remaining “hay” or “straw” (1 Cor 3:10-15). Christ is our savior and we cannot be saved apart from Him, but that doesn’t mean that all who profess Him are ready for heaven. Think of believers you know who “aren’t there yet.” If non-believers can’t live anyway they want to and be saved, why should we think believers could? Sometimes Christians abuse the grace of God by believing they’re already in heaven and so become more focused on worldly things. Patristic Universalism reminds everyone that none of us are “there yet.”



6. The duration of hell is limited not eternal (Exodus 34:6-7; Psalm 30:5; 77:7-9; Psalm 86:5; Jer 23:20; 30:24; Lam 3:31-32; Matt 6:14-45; Luke 12:47-48)

If the purpose of hell is to restore the sinner then obviously its duration cannot be eternal. I know the classic argument has always been that a crime committed against an eternal God must be punished with an eternal sentence but this concept completely breaks down when we remember that the Bible describes degrees of punishment for sinners. How can there be degrees of eternality? Is the lesser offender slapped in the face for all eternity while the more offensive sinner is burned for all eternity?


7. Everyone will eventually be saved (John 1:29; Rom 11:25-26, 32; 1 Cor 15:22, 28; 1 Tim 4:10)

This is not to say there is no hell or that people are not held accountable for their sins, but only that after the proper punishments have been administered whether they be medicinal, pedagogical, or purificatory, then all will be ready for entrance into Heaven’s sinless domain.



What Restoration Does Not Teach

· It does not teach there is no hell

· It does not teach there is no judgment for sin

· It does not teach pluralism

· It does not teach that people go straight to heaven

· It does not reject the Bible as God’s Word

· It does not teach you can be saved apart from faith in Christ

There's too much for me to respond to here, so I have to refrain from going into details, otherwise I'm going to drive us both nuts. I'll just leave it at this: What you describe here is a theological framework that in many ways seems reactionary to Arminianism, but more importantly, one that confuses Justification and Sanctification. It's the person and works of Christ who justifies us, and in Him, we are completely justified; and it's the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us or moulds us into the image of Christ, but this has no bearing on our salvation. Good works follow salvation, for it is in the Spirit that we are able to love God and love our neighbour. The best summary of the relationship between salvation and works to my mind is Ephesians 2:8-10.

Basically, the idea of a kind of Purgatory for believers and unbelievers is simply not taught in Scripture as illustrated above, nor by the early church. It's entirely foreign to the church fathers and it doesn't exist in our creeds.

 

[Daniel9v9]

@wendykvw Can I trouble you to find the verse or passage that you believe best support your theory? Then I'd be glad to look at the context together.

 

[wendykvw]

There's too much for me to respond to here, so I have to refrain from going into details, otherwise I'm going to drive us both nuts. I'll just leave it at this: What you describe here is a theological framework that in many ways seems reactionary to Arminianism, but more importantly, one that confuses Justification and Sanctification. It's the person and works of Christ who justifies us, and in Him, we are completely justified; and it's the Holy Spirit who sanctifies us or moulds us into the image of Christ, but this has no bearing on our salvation. Good works follow salvation, for it is in the Spirit that we are able to love God and love our neighbour. The best summary of the relationship between salvation and works to my mind is Ephesians 2:8-10.

Basically, the idea of a kind of Purgatory for believers and unbelievers is simply not taught in Scripture as illustrated above, nor by the early church. It's entirely foreign to the church fathers and it doesn't exist in our creeds.

I actually love what you wrote here, justification, sanctification and salvation gets all rolled into one. This is a problem, and I strongly believe this is why we have so much confusion among all the various denominations among Christianity. I have not studied the history of purgatory, but hell has been a contentious doctrine for sometime. Rethink hell conferences include discussion for each view. I posted a link.#103

Restoration is a balance between Calvinism and Arminianism. When you have time, this will give you a new perspective. Universalism, Calvinism, and Arminianism

 

[wendykvw]

@wendykvw Can I trouble you to find the verse or passage that you believe best support your theory? Then I'd be glad to look at the context together.

I would suggest the link provided above. #107.

 

[ozso]

I don't know if this would interest you, but I think you are on a roll to look at what early Judaism believed about hell, punishment, etc. I did something similar, but have not looked further into it. The website that I found helpful is chabad.org.

This was just interesting to me looking into other religions' beliefs of hell. Buddhism really surprised me:
In ancient Buddhism, hell is a place of eternal torment but reformed this view with the belief that hell was emptied by a victorious Savior.


In Judaism some believe hell is temporal and the amount of time spent is limited to twelve months, if someone is extremely wicked, they will be annihilated. According to the rabbi @ chabad.org


In Islam hell is reserved for non-believers of Allah and their torment and suffering will last for eternity.

Only what Judaism taught in the time of Christ is relevant because it pertains to what Jesus said about Gehenna and Hades.

 

[Daniel9v9]

I would suggest the link provided above. #107.

Thank you for the link. Though I regret to say it's a weak and flawed theory that betrays a lack of understanding of church controversies and what the different church bodies teach, believe, and confess. To say something positive about it, I'm glad the author wrestles with Arminianism and Calvinism and sees that there is truth and error in both systems. Both systems are logical in their own right, but both ignore or mishandle Scriptures that don't conform to their respective systems.

Now to suggest that Universalism is on par with Arminianism and Calvinism is not a particularly sophisticated take, because while I disagree with both Arminianism and Calvinism, and find it very peculiar that they can coexist in many church bodies, as if it didn't matter, I do recognise that they both in their own way have a fidelity to the creeds, whereas Universalism plainly doesn't. Universalism doesn't have any real Scriptural or historical weight. In fact, Universalism is not Christianity — it's a different religion, it's not what Christ preached, which is why these forums rightly do not allow it in Christian threads.

Now, the reason I wanted to dial things back and focus on one single passage or verse is to illustrate how these ideas are grossly misread. I've debated Universalists before, and every verse they quote do not deal with Universalism. They resort to taking things out of context and reading things into Scripture that don't belong.

So, what is the sedes doctrinae, that is, the passage or verse that explicitly teaches restoration in the Bible? Because in the article, there isn't any Scripture to hang the system on. There's only a loose theory — a reaction against three other systems. Do you see the problem with this? As one who believes, teaches, and confesses the ecumenical creeds, I can easily find where each line in the creeds comes from in the Bible. This theory goes hard against the creeds.

So, if you please, can I trouble you find a passage or a verse that you believe encapsulate the doctrine? Then we can take a look at it together and carefully and prayerfully consider the context.

 

[ozso]

What makes universalism unique, is that it's literally universal. There's hardly a branch of Christianity that doesn't contain universalists. RC, EO, Lutheran, Methodist, Baptist, Pentecostal et al. And within all those branches are some major theologians who are universalists.

 

[hedrick]

But, if Jesus compares duration of that punishment (hell) with the duration of that reward (heaven), it would make sense that they were used in the same way.

That’s if the word means duration. If, as seems likely, it refers to things associated with God or eschatology, that wouldn’t necessarily follow. That seems to depend upon which lexicon you use. My usual Greek lexicon, TDNT, does not see it as meaning infinite duration. Another major lexicon, BDAG, sees unending as a possible meaning. There are good scholars on both sides. The NT language also refers to both the OT and apparently other things such as 1 Enoch. But the interpretation of those varies as well. Is 66:24 refers to worms eating dead bodies, not eternal torment. But there is reason to think that some Jews in the 1st Cent interpreted it as worms tormenting souls forever. Some NT references could presuppose that interpretation.

The safest conclusion is that there were multiple interpretations in 1st Cent Judaism, and probably in the NT.

 

[ozso]

That’s if the word means duration. If, as seems likely, it refers to things associated with God or eschatology, that wouldn’t necessarily follow. That seems to depend upon which lexicon you use. My usual Greek lexicon, TDNT, does not see it as meaning infinite duration. There are good scholars on both sides.

Would you say it could fit in with the age to come?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Folks harp on "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” But they seem to overlook what it says leads to eternal life. It's saying if you give someone a glass of water, you'll have eternal life. So based on that, how literal is it? Because if it's literal, then most people have eternal life. I'm sure at some point in your life you offered someone a beverage or a snack etc. Especially a child which would be the least of these. I've done all the things listed more times than I can count, mostly just out of happenstance.

That’s not what the verse says brother.

“And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:42‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

I don’t believe this refers to salvation because salvation is not a reward. A reward is something earned. This refers to the rewards we receive in Heaven according to our good deeds.

 

[hedrick]

Would you say it could fit in with the age to come?

yes.

 

[hedrick]

That’s not what the verse says brother.

“And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:42‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

I don’t believe this refers to salvation because salvation is not a reward. A reward is something earned. This refers to the rewards we receive in Heaven according to our good deeds.

I think it does, but you need to understand the context.

"Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous; 42 and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward.”"

Most commentators on Matthew believe that "little ones" is actually a synonym for a follower of Jesus. So it refers to some who helps a disciple because they're a disciple.

I think the reward of a prophet, a righteous man, and a disciple is salvation.

If you think justification is by faith, Matthew is talking about works that show your faith. It's not just doing good that's rewarded, but doing good because the person is one of Christ's. Why might doing good to a righteous person because they are righteous cause you to get the same reward? Because it's showing an admiration of righteousness. It's not a sign of very explicit faith, but it's still a sign of your values. I think faith as Paul meant it is really a matter of your orientation.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I think it does, but you need to understand the context.

"Whoever welcomes a prophet in the name of a prophet will receive a prophet’s reward; and whoever welcomes a righteous person in the name of a righteous person will receive the reward of the righteous; 42 and whoever gives even a cup of cold water to one of these little ones in the name of a disciple—truly I tell you, none of these will lose their reward.”"

Most commentators on Matthew believe that "little ones" is actually a synonym for a follower of Jesus. So it refers to some who helps a disciple because they're a disciple.

I think the reward of a prophet, a righteous man, and a disciple is salvation.

If you think justification is by faith, Matthew is talking about works that show your faith. It's not just doing good that's rewarded, but doing good because the person is one of Christ's. Why might doing good to a righteous person because they are righteous cause you to get the same reward? Because it's showing an admiration of righteousness. It's not a sign of very explicit faith, but it's still a sign of your values. I think faith as Paul meant it is really a matter of your orientation.

I don’t see anything wrong with the idea that it could be referring to rewards in Heaven and not salvation. I don’t see how that would be contradictory to any verses in the scriptures but to say that the reward is salvation can be considered to be contradictory to verses that specifically state that we cannot earn salvation and that it is a gift freely given.

 

[hedrick]

There are lots of discussions like this that are unending. I think the reason is that we're trying to get the Bible to tell us answers that it isn't intended to give. Jesus clearly believes in rewards and punishments after death. But in the Gospels he's never, as far as I can recall, giving us a complete description of what happens after death. His statements about judgement are all focused on what causes you to be rewarded or punished. His descriptions and images of judgement are quite varied, ranging from missing a party to eternal worms. A reasonable person might conclude that he's not intending to answer some of the questions we want answers to. Traditional exegesis gravitates to the most extreme and extrapolates from there. That's not how I do it.

There are a couple of places that do look at what happens. I'm thinking of Paul in 1 Cor 15 (and I believe also 1 Thes) and the Revelation. But Paul is focused on the final outcome, a complete restoration. So it's still not a complete description of judgement, though other passages in Paul do talk about wrath and describe judgement in other ways. That's why Paul can still be understood in a couple of ways. There are some ambiguities in the Revelation, but it also has a clear view of the final state, which is also a complete restoration. I think the lake of fire indicates destruction of God's enemies before that happens (as does 1 Cor 15:24, though in Paul it's not clear whether that includes humans or just supernatural enemies, while the Revelation is clearer).

Just how much we are committed to the destruction that's at least implicit in Paul and explicit in the Revelation is a matter of our theology and how we view the Bible. I don't feel completely committed, but I'm not prepared to ignore it either. I would like to believe in universalism, but I fear there are some people sufficiently opposed to God that fixing them wouldn't leave much of what they are.

 

[ozso]

That’s not what the verse says brother.

“And whoever in the name of a disciple gives to one of these little ones even a cup of cold water to drink, truly I say to you, he shall not lose his reward.””
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭10:42‬ ‭NASB1995‬‬

I don’t believe this refers to salvation because salvation is not a reward. A reward is something earned. This refers to the rewards we receive in Heaven according to our good deeds.

Then why in this is eternal life based on those who gave? That's the story as a whole. Those who gave a cup of water etc will go away into eternal life, and those who didn't will go away into eternal punishment.

 

[eleos1954]

I assume you believe that the deceased are sleeping and support the annihilation view?

It is right here (other places as well)

New King James Version
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

perish greek
Strong's Greek: 622. ἀπόλλυμι (apollumi) -- to destroy, destroy utterly

apollumi: to destroy, destroy utterly
Original Word: ἀπόλλυμι
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: apollumi
Phonetic Spelling: (ap-ol'-loo-mee)
Definition: to destroy, destroy utterly
Usage: (a) I kill, destroy, (b) I lose, mid: I am perishing (the resultant death being viewed as certain).
HELPS Word-studies
622 apóllymi (from 575 /apó, "away from," which intensifies ollymi, "to destroy") – properly, fully destroy, cutting off entirely (note the force of the prefix, 575 /apó).

622 /apóllymi ("violently/completely perish") implies permanent (absolute) destruction, i.e. to cancel out (remove); "to die, with the implication of ruin and destruction" (L & N, 1, 23.106); cause to be lost (utterly perish) by experiencing a miserable end.