Alternative Views of Hell

[Guest]

Purgatory is unscriptural and has nothing to do with unbelievers only with believers venial sins being forgiven by the dead persons relatives and friends prayers. I don't look at this as an idea but purely scriptural. What is an idea and a tradition is eternal torment with Jesus having the keys to death and hell after he got through telling us to "love our enemies." We are to be conformed to the image of God and God tells us to "love our enemies" but then God turns around and throughs his enemies into eternal torment. Is God a God of contradiction or a God of justice?

[Guest]

Let's say you are governor of a state and your son commited murder, was convicted and sentenced to death. If you allowed justice to be carried out (didn't pardon him) would this prove you did not love your son?

[Guest]

Well the govt should protect us and as governor i would have to protect the people and the OT does provide for such a penalty therefore it may be justice unless there were other facts. If God annhilates unbelievers i could understand that although it seems such a blanket solution would'nt be fair for every situation. Even eternal torment seems fair for someone like Hitler or Stalin but the vast majority of unbelievers are'nt anymore evil then you or me it's just that they're eyes of understanding have'nt been opened, that's all. Depending on one's circumstances in this life is a great factor in whether they will know Jesus or not and the circumstances vary so much from person to person that if God is just then there must be something more.

[Guest]

You quoted:

25 For he must reign, till he hath put all enemies under his feet.

So after Jesus returns, he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. So it does not appear that there will be a quick conversion of the non-disciples as soon as they see Jesus.

When Jesus returns, He will defeat the last enemy. His reign doesn't start when He comes back. Instead, it began after his death and resurrection:

Hebrews 10:12-13; But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet.

His reign is now, the last enemy is defeated at the resurrection:

1Co 15:25 For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.
1Co 15:26 The last enemy to be destroyed is death.
1Co 15:27 For "God has put all things in subjection under his feet." But when it says, "all things are put in subjection," it is plain that he is excepted who put all things in subjection under him.

1Co 15:51 Behold! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed,
1Co 15:52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed.
1Co 15:53 For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
1Co 15:54 When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory."
1Co 15:55 "O death, where is your victory? O death, where is your sting?"

[Guest]

It still makes no sense to me that someone lives in unbelief and rebellion against God only to be rewarded in the resurrection?

John 3:15 ...whoever believes in him may have eternal life.

John 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

When it comes time for judgement, how can one who has not believed recieve the same reward as the believer. Wouldn't this impune God's justice?

Just as one can argue it's not right for God to judge someone because Jesus came to save sinners, or it would just be unfair to send people into the lake of fire (weather or not it's destruction or ongoing torment) for only doing a few sins? (Isn't rebellion unbelief? Wouldn't that make every thought word and deed evil in God's sight even if that person seems nice on the outside? Titus 1:15)

You can also argue the other side that if God does forgive unbelievers equally, then I don't see how this can be reconciled with scripture. Like 1 John 1:9. If you never repent and never ask for forgiveness, then you never get forgiven.*

So it seems like another option is repentance after death. Since this is not taught or encouraged clearly in the scriptures, but repentance is (and the time is now Acts 17:30)

In other words, many warnings are given to repent and follow Christ. Never is this taken lightly as if a second change will be given. As a matter of fact, it seems highly unlikely that people would accept repentance-unto-salvation even if offered at judgement day. Because it wouldn't be genuine. Everyone "cleans up their act" when they "in trouble" but they also immediately go back to sin one the master has let up.

______________________________

* I can already hear someone say: "Then that means you are saying all babies go to judgement". No, that's not what I am saying because I believe in an age of accountability. Additionally, doesn't God have the ability to know if an infant would believe if given an opportunity?

[Guest]

We stopped recently at a garage sale a Christian couple was having. The man gave me a large, beautiful picture of Christ from the passion movie. He related that earlier he had offered it to a woman and she said to him "I'm not interested in any of that crap". Would she, if her life ended in such a state, deserve the same fate as Hitler or Stalin? What about Ted Bundy, who was said to have repented and accepted Christ before his execution? She might be a much better person than him, however, we do not see things from God's point of view.

I would like to know, from a universalist's point of view, which would be preferable:

1. For a person to have never existed. Or....

2. For a person to live a sinful life as an infidel, die and suffer in torment for a long, long time, then repent and spend eternity in bliss with God.

How can one maintain that aion in Matthew 25:46 means anything but eternal? To be consistent in translation, how can it be argued that Jesus used the word to mean two different things in the same sentence? Or is the eternal state of the saved only a temporary condition that can change? This stains credulity.

[Guest]

Christ does reign until the resurrection of everyone and then he judges as everyone appears before the judgement seat of Christ. He changes from reigning to judging as unbelievers are thrown into the lake of fire and death the last enemy has been destroyed. At that point sinners have to pay for their sins and spend an "aion" in the lake for a time determined by Christ. At some point "every knee will bow and every tongue confess that Jesus is Lord." This is the only plausable method of justice IMHO where the justice is matched fairly against the sins committed. As a person sins in life he is "storing up God's wrath." Either annhilation or eternal torment in hell has no element of justice because there is no matching up punishment against sins committed.
"Aion" leaves open the possiblity of eternity in heaven for the believer and it leaves open the possibility of a time determined by God for the unbeliever to pay for their sins in the lake of fire. It actually is the perfect word because it allows for all possibilities.

[Guest]

Matthew 25:46 And they will go away into aionios correction, but the righteous into aionios life.

How can one maintain that aion in Matthew 25:46 means anything but eternal? To be consistent in translation, how can it be argued that Jesus used the word to mean two different things in the same sentence? Or is the eternal state of the saved only a temporary condition that can change? This stains credulity.

Apparently Jerome did not use the Latin word for "eternal" in his translation of "aionios". That's why Augustine, who was chiefly responsible for spreading the doctrine of "eternal punishment" quoted the very verse you have quoted in support of his position that "aionios" meant "eternal".

But this very verse is evidence that this position is incorrect. For the word "kolasis" does not mean "punishment" but "correction". And how can there be eternal correction? If there is correction, it must come to an end some day when the person has been corrected.

Will Christ reign for ever? Consider the following passage:

Revelation 11:15 Then the seventh angel blew his trumpet, and there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord and of his Christ, and he shall reign for ever and ever." RSV[/purple]

The words "for ever and ever" have been translated from forms of "aion". This expression literally means "into the ages of the ages".

If "he" refers to Christ, then according this translation, He shall reign for ever and ever. But Paul states in the following passage that Christ will reign until He has put all his enemies under His feet. Then He will deliver the Kingdom to the Father, that God may be all in all.

So the expression "eis tous aionas tOn aiOnOn" CANNOT mean "for ever and ever". In my understanding, it means "for ages and ages".
I Corinthians 15:24, 25 Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet.

I Corinthians 15:28
When all things are subjected to him, then the Son himself will also be subjected to the one who put all things in subjection under him, so that God may be all in all.

So the expression "eis tous aiOnas tOn aiOnOn" CANNOT mean "for ever and ever". According to my understanding, it means "for ages and ages".
Jesus must reign for ages and ages, before He has put all his enemies under his feet. For many of them will hold out for a very long time!

But to respond to your main point:

To be consistent in translation, how can it be argued that Jesus used the word to mean two different things in the same sentence?

It would be ridiculous to argue that! The two phrases are parallel. So obviously the word is used in the same way in both phrases. But it does not mean "eternal" in either!

Or is the eternal state of the saved only a temporary condition that can change?

The word "aionios" may be correctly translated as "going from age to age". Though the word does not MEAN "eternal", it does not EXCLUDE the possibility of being eternal.

The correction of the goats will go from age to age. The life of the sheep will go from age to age. That which goes from age to age MAY come to an end, or it may not. In the case of the goats, the correction will come to an end, when each of the goats repents.

I cannot comment on whether the life of any of the sheep will come to an end. Could any of them in the future turn against God? This is not revealed. Many say that Satan was once an angel that rebelled against God. Having known God so intimately, how could he ever have done that?

My assumption is that none of the "sheep" will ever do that. But whether there is such a possibility has not been revealed.

[Guest]

If universalism is true then what is the difference between the believer and the unbeliever? This is an excellent question. Here are my thoughts on this.

Jesus said, "unless you repent, you too will all perish" (Luke 13:5b).

and again,

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

This is a common theme in the new testament; those who do not believe or do not repent will perish - those who do will receive eternal life. So what does it mean to perish?

Paul said,

Rom 6:23
For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

So according to Paul, "to perish" means death. But not physical death because we know that even believers die physically.

Jesus said,

Matt 10:28
And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

So for those who perish, not only does the body die, but the soul dies also. This is what revelation calls "the second death" (Rev 2:11, Rev 20:6, Rev 20:14, Rev 21:8.).

In contrast, for the believer, the soul lives on after the body dies (everlasting life) and goes to be with Christ.

Paul said,

Phil 1:21-24
21For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain. 22If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! 23I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far; 24but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.

So, the difference between perishing and eternal life is one difference between the believer and the unbeliever. Another is the one I outlined in my earlier post. That is: the difference for those who are alive and remain unto the coming of Jesus. Those who are Christ's will rise to meet him in the air (1 Thes 5:13-18 ); those who are not will suffer God's wrath and die in the same flames that consume the earth and melt the elements (2 Pet 3:3-12, 2 Thes 1:7-9, Heb 10:27, Rev 20:9).

A third difference is the indwelling Holy Spirit for believers which leads to a full life in Christ.

But, God is merciful, and after the unbelievers have perished and suffered his wrath in the fire of his coming, they shall all be resurrected (Acts 24:15).

Rev 5:13-14
13Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing:
"To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb
be praise and honor and glory and power,
for ever and ever!"
14The four living creatures said, "Amen," and the elders fell down and worshiped.

Luke 3:6
And all flesh shall see the salvation of God.

Todd

[Guest]

Also the translation into for "ages and ages" is logical whereas" forever and ever" makes no sense because you can't add anything to eternal. So when you say forever and then add to it by "and ever" it indicates that it can't mean eternal but a finite amount of time that can be added to.