Alternative Views of Hell

Post by **_Anonymous** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 1:43 pm

I must confess that I find the eternal torment view (especially in a literal lake of fire) comes from poor exegesis of scripture and seems to be a "scare tactic" that the church uses to win converts. The site that Steve and I referenced gives a good argument against the eternal torment view, but in my opinion, doesn't etch out a positive case for universal salvation... but that wasn't the goal of the article.

My question at this point is, Jesus repeatedly talked about people being saved. If universal salvation is correct, how can someone be saved or unsaved? Does anyone know how the defenders of this doctrine answer this question? Also, how does the universalist view fit when the bible seems to speak of the unbelievers and wicked being destroyed as referenced in Steve's earlier post? My current position is undecided but it teetering between universal salvation (with varying levels of reward) and the view that Steve holds. I was hoping someone might sway my opinion a bit.

Post by **_Homer** » Fri Jul 08, 2005 10:32 pm

Are not the "lake of fire" and "outer darkness" both referring to the same place? Are one or both of these terms metaphorical? Fire and darkness seem incompatible as descriptions of the same place. I had thought of the lake of fire as metaphorical and outer darkness as an existance totally separated from God and any influence of God which would be a very bad place to be!

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 10:47 am

My own 2 cents is that "the lake of fire" is God who is a consuming fire. If you accept the possibility that there are ages that exist than that would reconcile universalism with destruction since everyone is raised to judgement even if they are destroyed. Universalism does'nt mean salvation isn't necessary and that being "in Christ" isn't necessary it's more a question of when and where. Remember every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess that "Jesus is Lord" yet without the Holy Spirit no man can confess Jesus as Lord.

Post by **_Benjamin Ho** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:16 am

Hi STEVE7150,

Actually I thought that Philippians 2:10-11 included non-believers but in a different sense: they would finally acknowledge who Jesus truly is but they still remain unsaved.

An analogy would be some Americans might say that George Bush is President of USA but he is not their President of choice. Similarly this would go with James 2:19 where demons are said to believe that God is one but I don't think they are included in the saved group. In Luke 4:32 and Luke 8:28, the demons addressed Jesus as the Son/Holy One of God (couldn't that be the same as confessing?), but yet they were still banished.

Another 2 cents.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:26 am

Parables never mention a name in a parable?
Mark 4.15 mentions Satan
Matt 13.37 mentions the Son of Man
Matt 13.39 mentions the Devil
Matt 15.13 mentions God the Father
Luke 4.23 Jesus applies Physician to himself

I think that since Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees and had just relayed 4 consecutive parables and gave no indication he was swithching to a literal story it's likely that this is also a parable. How did he open the third,fourth and fifth parables.
" A certain man" 15.11
"There was a certain rich man" 16.1
"There was a certain rich man" 16.19
Is it a sin to be rich and does that make the richman sinful and is it Godly to be poor? Abraham was rich (Gen 13.2) Isaac was rich, Jacob was rich,Joseph was rich, so was David and Job. They were Godly.
What about "the dogs" licking sores , if this is a literal story why would this piece of irrelevant literal info be added unless it's symbolic.
Is Abraham really in heaven? " No man has ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven." John 3.13
Is the rich man in hell? Does God sentence before he judges?
"Verily ,i am saying to you ,more tolerable will it be for the land of Sodom and the land of Gomorrah in that DAY OF JUDGING than for that city." Matt 10.15
If this story is literal how did the rich man recognize Abraham? He even called him Father.
What do "purple and fine linen" symbolize?"
Who had 5 brothers? Judah did! Judah's mother Leah had Reuben,Simeon,Levi,Issachar,Zebulun. (Gen 29.31, 30.18-19)
Back to those dogs, who are they?
"Yet Jesus said to her,Let first the children be satisfied ,for it is not ideal to take the childrens bread and cast it to the dogs." Mark 6.27

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:39 am

Hi Ben, You may be right but on the other hand scripture does'nt say demons will acknowledge "Jesus as Lord" and "confess it with their mouth." According to Paul you can only do this with the assistance of the Holy Spirit ,yet if that's true than the "kingdom of God" would be indwelling a person at that point and Jesus said that a kingdom devided can not stand when the Pharisees accused him of casting out Satan using Satan. So how can the kingdom of God destroy the kingdom of God and still stand? Another words how can Jesus destroy a person who was an unbeliever if he confesses Jesus as Lord because he would have to be indwelt by the Holy Spirit at that point and be part of the kingdom of God.

Post by **_ryanfrombryan** » Sun Jul 10, 2005 3:51 pm

Steve,

I'm curious how you deal with these verses:

"Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels,'" (Matt. 25:41).

"These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (25:46).

Verse 41 especially is what gets me. This is not found in apocalyptic literature and, at least from the context, I don't see any reason to take it metaphorically. Also, I see no reason why the fire would need to be eternal if people only suffered in it a short while. Verse 46 is a lot easier to get around, but verse 41 seems pretty tough. Any thoughts would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

Ryan

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 7:36 am

Interesting that Jesus seems to be speaking to believers who did good works and those that did'nt. "Aion" is translated into eternal here and "pur" is translated into fire IMHO to support the theology of eternal damnation. I think that "aion" means age to be determined by God and "pur" is the base of pure or purification or judgement and not a literal fire burning the flesh.

Post by **_Benjamin Ho** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 8:48 am

I thought Ryan's question and Steve7150's answer are interesting. If we do take Steve7150's interpretation that the Greek behind "eternal fire" as the correct view, does that mean there is still hope for the devil and his angels to be saved? What is the universalist's view on the punishment of the devil and his angels?

Post by **_Steve** » Mon Jul 11, 2005 11:45 am

Ryan's verses work better for conditional immortality than for universalism, in my opinion--though they actually are among the better verses for the purpose of those wishing to prove eternal torment. Here are some thoughts on those verses:

1. "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels,'" (Matt. 25:41).

Those who take either the universalist or annihilationist view do not consider that "eternal fire" necessarily speaks of the eternal consciousness of those who are in it. As has been pointed out, aionios means "age abiding," and does not have to mean "never ending" But, of course, it can be applied to things that are never ending, like "eternal life," and "the everlasting God." Even if we take aionios to mean everlasting in this sense, however, the fire may still be said to be eternal only because it is itself a characteristic of God Himself. "Our God is a consuming fire" (Heb.12:29).

That the fire is itself an image of God's wrath and judgment, inseparable from God's own nature, makes it legitimate to speak of it as eternal fire. It is as eternal as God is. Thus we see that the fire that consumed Sodom and Gomorrah is referred to as "eternal fire" in Jude 7. That fire was neither everlasting nor "age abiding," but momentary. Yet it was a manifestation of the eternal fire of God's wrath. Yet, though "our [eternal] God is a consuming [eternal] fire," it is nonetheless true that He is a "consuming" fire. He burns things up. To the universalists, the fire is seen as burning up dross in the process of the sinner's purification. To the annihilationist, it is the sinner himself that is burned up.

2. "These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life" (25:46).

Universalists say that the punishment is not eternal but ages-long. If this is so, how long is an age? Is it less than or more than, say, a century? How many such ages must a criminal endure torment before being brought to repentance? These questions must remain unanswered, it seems to me.

Annihilationists, on the other hand, believe that the sinners' punishment is eternal (never-ending) in the sense that it is never reversed...it is final and irrevocable. They are consumed and never brought back into existence. Conditionalists often say that "it is the punishment that is eternal, not the punishing." This seems to me like a reasonable suggestion.

As for Ben's question about the redemption of the devil himself, there are universalists who actually believe in the eventual restoration of Satan and the demons. This seems very unlikely to me, but fits in with some of the proof-texts that speak of "all things" being reconciled in Christ. Of course, this assumes that Satan was once better than he is now, and has a former relationship with God to which he can be reconciled and restored. As you know, I have my doubts about this.