Alternative Views of Hell

[Guest]

Steve (or anyone else),
I have always resolved to keep an open mind with regard to studying scripture. Recently, I was reading up on the Universalist view of hell and immediatly I felt the need to dismiss it since it seemed a bit foreign to me. However, the non-dispensational view of theology was also at one time foreign to me. Therefore, if I have resolved to be fair-minded and let the scriptures guide me, I have to at least consider the points presented.

After a little study, I have concluded that this view can be seen from the scriptures. That doesn't mean the view is correct with respect to hell, but it does seem to hold as true when properly explained. I'm not sold on this view of hell at present, but it seems plausable based on the following argument: http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html

I would love to hear Steve's or anyone else's opinion on this article or the view in general. Thanks.

[_Steve]

Hi jcdv,

I think it is a good idea to be fair-minded in considering alternative views of hell. This is one of the more recent changes I have made in my own theology. I have known of three defensible views of hell for almost 20 years, but was pretty stuck on defending the traditional view (eternal torment)...partly because I grew up thinking of this view as a litmus test for conservative evangelicalism. I have recently been more willing to release my grip on this traditional view as the biblical evidence has become overwhelming.

I am aware of two biblically defensible alternatives to the "eternal torment" view of hell. One is the universalist view, and the other is the conditional immortality view (annihilationism). Over the years, my studies have convinced me that the eternal torment view has very little biblical basis, and depends heavily on poor exegetical practices and mistranslations of relevant biblical terminology. Of the two alternatives, I find the universalist position to be the more attractive, but the annihilationist view somewhat better supported in scripture. I realize that I could be wrong, but this is my present leaning.

Christian universalism and annihilationism both teach that there is a hell of punishment for those who die faithless, but they believe that the punishment is not eternal, but proportional (in the case of annihilationism) or else remedial (in the case of universalism). According to annihilationism, souls are not naturally immortal, and after the lost have been appropriately punished, they will pass into non-existence. According to universalism, all who are punished in hell will eventually be brought to repentance, and thereby reconciled to God.

The main arguments for universalism seem to be:

1. God desires all people to be saved (1 Tim. 2:4/ John 3:16/ Ezek.18:23, 32)

2. Christ died to redeem the whole world (John 1:29/ 1 John 2:2/ 1 Tim.2:6)

3. The Bible sometimes speaks of universal salvation and restoration (1 Tim.4:10/ Rom.5:18-19/ Col.1:19-20/ Eph. 1:9-10/ John 12:32)

4. If Christ desires that all be saved, and paid for their redemption, but, because of the devil's resistance to this, billions of people are nonetheless lost, then this makes God and Christ the cosmic, eternal losers and the devil the winner, which seems to go against many biblical statements (1 John 4:4/ Heb.2:14/ 1 John 3:8/ Col. 2:15/ Isa.42:1-4).

5. This was believed by many in the early church. Of the six main Christian schools known to exist in the first four centuries, four taught universalism (Alexandria, Edessa, Antioch and Caesarea); one taught annihilationism (Ephesus); and one taught eternal torment (Rome).

6. If this view is correct, it would be the one of the three that would cause the most rejoicing in heaven among God and the saints.

The arguments for conditional immortality (annihilationism) are principally as follows:

1. Only God possesses immortality by nature (1 Tim.6:16);

2. Men do not possess immortality naturally, and the soul can be destroyed (Matt.10:28);

3. Men must "seek" immortality (Rom.2:7);

4. God gives immortality (eternal life) to men on the basis of their faith in Him (John 3:16/ 10:28/ Rom.6:23/ 1 John 5:11-12);

5. The fate of the lost is generally described using terms such as "death," "destruction," "consumed" and "perish" (Matt. 10:28/ 1 Thess. 5:3/ 2 Thess.1:9; 2:8/ John 3:16/ Rom.2:12/ etc.).

6. The view that men are naturally immortal is not taught in either Testament of the Bible, but it was a view of the ancient Greeks, prior to and since New Testament times. Some say it is a pagan idea that was introduced into Christian theology by the Greek fathers, and exploited by the Medieval Church to "keep people in line.".


Problems with the eternal torment view include the following:

1. All the passages of scripture upon which it is based (and there are only a few) are found in apocalyptic contexts, where symbolism is a common phenomenon;

2. The Bible nowhere says that unsaved people live forever;

3. God never warned Adam and Eve (or anyone else) that, if they were to sin, they would be eternally tormented, but only that they would die (e.g. Gen.2:17/ Ezek.18:4/ Rom.6:23), which would be a misleading understatement, if the traditional view is correct;

4. Eternal punishment for temporal crimes seems unjust even by God's stated standards of justice (an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth). A debt or penalty that takes forever to repay will never be fully repaid, and there can never be any final justice or resolution of the problem of sin in the universe;

5. The Bible speaks of degrees of punishment of the wicked (e.g. Matt.10:22, 24/ Luke 12:47-48). If all sinners suffer eternally, then all receive equally infinite (not proportionate) punishment;

6. If men are not immortal by nature, what motive, apart from vindictiveness and cruelty, could God have for supernaturally keeping sinners alive forever, without any hope of eventual relief or rehabilitation? Does such a motivation agree with the picture of the merciful and loving God found in scripture?;

7. How could God and the saints rejoice in eternity knowing that their loved ones were all the while, in another part of the universe, experiencing endless torture and agony?

Now, if the Bible somewhere clearly taught that the fate of the wicked is to be endless torment (as I once thought it did), then we would have to simply ignore these objections and say, by sheer loyalty, "But notwithstanding these things, I believe that God is just in tormenting people for eternity" (as I used to say). My further studies of the scriptures, in general, and of the few verses upon which I once based my belief in eternal torment, in particular, have moved me away from my confidence that such a doctrine ever was taught in scripture. It was an effective tool for keeping the masses loyal to the church in the Middle Ages, and seems consistent with such a "God" as was presented in Medieval Christianity. However, I can no longer confidently assert that it is the doctrine of scripture, nor that it portrays the same God as He who was revealed in the Lord Jesus Christ.

For a more-detailed discussion on universalism, check out this thread: http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=332

A newer thread, on conditional immortality, can be found at http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewtopic.php?t=620

[Guest]

Considering the word translated as eternal in scripture is "aion" which actually means age why does hell have to be eternal. There are dozens of verses state Christ came to save "all" or through Abraham "all the families of the earth will be blessed" or Christ died for the sins of the world. Traditional Christianity has maybe 5% of humanity throughout history being saved , yet it's God's desire that none perish and all come into the knowledge of the truth. In Rev 20 what are the dead judged for, to see how high the heat is turned up in hell? I heard Hannagraff state that hell must be eternal because without an eternal hell there is no eternal heaven. Hello, the fact is whatever God decided he decided regardless of what we may like and "aion" does'nt mean eternal. And "the rich man" in Luke 16 is clearly the jewish nation since Father Abraham only applied to them , so this parable was about the torment they would experience by rejecting Christ IMHO.

[Guest]

I have wonderred, if hell is for eternity then the unsaved have eternal life!

[Guest]

Steve, thank you for those insights. After hearing the arguments for the Universalist view, I can say that a good number of their beliefs seem anti-biblical, except when it comes to the view of hell. To me, this is a very attractive view (like you said) but that can't be the deciding factor. In your opinion (and others, feel free to chime in) is the universalist view of hell heretical at all?

The universalist stance on hell seems to fit with the character of God described in scripture. For example, when Jesus tells us to love our enemy and do good to those who persecute us, one can't help but imagine that God, himself, would follow his own mandate. I'm not sure what to think at this point and that bothers me. The reason is because the issue of hell kind of shows us what God's character is like. This is also something I find difficult to explain properly when skeptics throw God's "unreasonable" judgement at me. I'm aware of all the standard responses to such assaults but my concern is not winning an argument, but rather, I just want to know what's true. What is God really like?

[_Steve]

I don't know why the universalist view of hell would be regarded as heretical. It does not deny any cardinal doctrine of Christianity (e.g., the deity of Christ; the atonement and salvation through Christ alone; justification by faith; the resurrection and the judgment, etc.), and, as I said above, it was widely held in the early church, and has a credible scriptural case in its favor which does not require the twisting of any biblical passages. Who knows? It might turn out to be true...and no one would be happier than me if it were.

As I mentioned, I think the case for conditional immortality is somewhat stronger in scripture, though this may be an intuitive judgment, rather than an objective one.

Even when I staunchly defended the eternal torment view of hell, I always believed that God is perfectly just, and that none can rightly criticize Him. In dealing with unbelievers, however, I can, in good conscience say to them that I have serious doubts about the eternal torment view, and whether the conditional immortality view or the universalist view should turn out to be correct, neither can be regarded, even by a reasonable unbeliever, as unjust or severe.

[Guest]

Where do we find the word eternal or everlasting in scripture? Aion is translated "eternal" and aionios" is translated everlasting but the words mean age or ages and ages. Why is judgement assumed to mean conviction when "krises" means "crises" or critical time of decisions. What is a crises center? Is a crises center where people are dumped into the pit of hell eternally even if they never heard of Christ? In the "lake of fire" is that translation correct regarding "torment" or should it be "chastisement?"

[Guest]

Dear Steve,

How does the story of Lazarus and the Rich man fit into these various views?

[Guest]

Hi, since my name is also Steve i'll give it a shot. The " Rich Man" is the jewish nation because Abraham was only their father and they were rich because they were the only ones given "Gods Word." Lazarus or the gentiles were poor because they did'nt have the knowledge of Gods word. The jews would'nt share the sumptuous fare with the gentile dogs so the parable was that after this age they would reverse places and that Father Abraham could never help them and the gulf represented their stubborness of not looking to Jesus the only one who could help them cross over. The 5 brothers are either the 5 brothers of Annanias or i think Judah but this is a combination parable/prophecy. The tongue may represent the tongues that yelled "crucify him" and the water may be the "word of God." Just my thoughts, OK the real Steve can answer now.

[_Steve]

Thanks, Steve, for your insights.

Ben,

I confess that, for all my life, it has been the story (parable?) of Lazarus and the rich man (Luke 16:19ff) that has stood out, in my thinking, as the most convincing proof of the universal immortality of all souls--both saved and lost. I understood the evidence to lean toward the conclusion that it is a true story, and thus representative of the respective conditions of the saved and the lost (at least prior to the death and resurrection of Christ).

I have always been aware that some people regarded this to be another of Christ's parables, rather than an actual case, but I thought the use of a proper name (Lazarus) made this inherently unlikely, since no other recorded parables of Christ give proper names to their characters.

I also felt that, even if the story was indeed a parable, it still argues for literal conditions like those described, since all the recorded parables describe real-life-like situations. It was my opinion that, if the conditions described in the story were not representative of reality, then Christ could be charged with misleading His audience concerning the state of the dead.

Some argued that it must be a parable because the rich man is charged with no sin, and the beggar is not described as righteous, and so the story cannot be describing the real lot of dead people--unless we want to conclude that rich people go to hell simply because they are rich, and poor people go to Paradise simply because they are poor. This objection seemed weak to me, however, since one could, on the same grounds, argue that the parable of the sheep and the goats (Matt.25:31ff) does not teach the truth about the final judgment, since only good deeds are mentioned as a criterion. It is clear from all relevant scriptures that the final judgment will be based upon "every man's work" (Matt.16:27/Rom.2:5ff/1 Peter 1:17/ Rev.20:12-13) as the evidence of whether a man had faith or not.

I confess, it always bothered me a bit to think that those who had died 6000 years ago and were even now burning in hades, and have been all that time, were getting a worse deal than, say, those who die lost much later in history, and who therefore have to put up with much less suffering. I explained this to myself by saying that, since everyone there is going to suffer for eternity ultimately, a difference of a few thousand years is negligible. However, if the suffering is proportionate to guilt, it still seems that those who have been burning for thousands of years already have been experiencing suffering for a very long time, from their point of view!

I have come to a change of mind about this story however, based upon two considerations. One is that my recent studies of the scripture have given me a far greater respect for the view that the lost are not immortal by nature. The story of Lazarus and the rich man would seem to be the only passage in the Bible to teach the immortality of the human soul, and there is such a body of scripture against this proposition as to raise doubts about the literalness of this unique story.

Second, Thomas Thayer, in an article I read some time ago ( and to which the original post in this thread provided a link) wrote: "Dr. Whitby affirms, 'we find this very parable in the Gemara Babylonicum.'." I have had no success in getting my hands upon this document, but if this is true, it means that Jesus was referencing a non-canonical story, familiar to those of His day, without committing Himself to its truthfulness. In other words, if this was a familiar story to the Jews, but they knew it to be a make-believe story, Jesus might have used it to illustrate, in parabolic fashion, some spiritual principle. I am still looking for the text of the Gemara Babylonicum. to see whether this story really resembles one found there.

This is the state of my inquiry concerning the story of Lazarus and the rich man. If it is a true story, it would only prove the postmortem survival of the soul, not necessarily the immortality of the soul (though the former might be seen as suggestive of the latter). On the other hand, if the story is simply an illustration drawn from a known religious fable, then it cannot be easily employed to overthrow the doctrine of conditional immortality.

I encourage those who are interested in this subject to do their own research and to reach their own conclusions. Thayer was himself a Christian Universalist, and his article at http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/tbhell.html is a valuable piece of propaganda in the defense of that view.