Alternative Views of Hell

[Guest]

Rev 14:9-11 "Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

I might have missed it in my going back through and trying to read through this thread, but has anyone dealt with this passage in relation to the debate? I would like to know what an annihilationist response would be. Thanks.

I am not sure I qualify as an annihilationist, however I notice the similarity in the language in the above passage and the passage in Isaiah 34:6-10. There we see the destruction of Edom predicted using much the same terminology.

-------

Isa 34:6 The sword of the LORD is filled with blood, It is sated with fat, with the blood of lambs and goats, With the fat of the kidneys of rams. For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah And a great slaughter in the land of Edom.
Isa 34:7 Wild oxen will also fall with them And young bulls with strong ones; Thus their land will be soaked with blood, And their dust become greasy with fat.
Isa 34:8 For the LORD has a day of vengeance, A year of recompense for the cause of Zion.
Isa 34:9 Its streams will be turned into pitch, And its loose earth into brimstone, And its land will become burning pitch.
Isa 34:10 It will not be quenched night or day; Its smoke will go up forever. From generation to generation it will be desolate; None will pass through it forever and ever.

----

-- fire and brimstone vs. pitch and brimstone
-- no rest night or day vs. fire not quenched night or day
-- smoke of torment ascending forever vs. smoke going up forever

Edom was destroyed long ago, and its smoke is not still ascending. I think we see in both of these passages typical, prophetic, apocalyptic language.

Just my take on it...

Mike

Isn't that the point though, the cities (like Edom) are no more, they are not going to repent and come back. They are gone forever. Doesn't that still point away from a universalist view? If the events that came upon Edom are likened to the events that come upon those thrown into the lake of fire, then how is it that they can repent when in this example above Edom cannot? It's chance to change/repent is gone forever.

Just a thought.

[Guest]

Matthew 26:24
"The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”


Why did Jesus say this about Judas if he will eventually be saved anyway. Certainly no amount of suffering/correction can equal a time where it would be better that your not even born. Especially when one is going to be spending eternity with the Father, eventually anyway.

[Guest]

Matthew 26:24
"The Son of Man indeed goes just as it is written of Him, but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed! It would have been good for that man if he had not been born.”

Why did Jesus say this about Judas if he will eventually be saved anyway. Certainly no amount of suffering/correction can equal a time where it would be better that your not even born. Especially when one is going to be spending eternity with the Father, eventually anyway.

I've heard this said before, but I have difficulty in grasping the thinking behind it.

By the same reasoning, why would it be better for Judas not to have been born if he were going to be annihilated? Didn't he live a fairly pleasant life here on earth?

However, it would be better not to be born than to undergo the severe correction that will take place in Gehenna, especially since it will last "ages of ages"! Would it not be better not to have been born than to have to endure that? The same could be said of anyone who will be cast into Gehenna.

In a similar vein, Jesus said, "... it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the aeonian fire." Matthew 18:18.

As I see it, Jesus said such words to warn us of the severity of the enduring corrective punishment in Gehenna ---- definitely great, enduring suffering that we would all greatly desire to escape even if we should have a taste of it for only 2 minutes! How important to become a disciple of Christ and thus avoid Gehenna (not that we become disciples for that reason alone)!

But the most horrible thing to be avoided and loathed beyond all else in not suffering in Gehenna,but rebellion against God, sin against Him, and self-aggrandization.

It would be better to be corrected in Gehenna for millions of years than continue in rebellion forever!

As an aside, I wonder why Paul, who risked his life many times to spread the gospel throughout his known world, didn't mention Gehenna even once in any of his writings. He warned people frequently about God's wrath, and the day of judgment, but never referred to "Gehenna" or the Lake of Fire. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

[Guest]

But that's where I'm having the trouble understanding. Wouldn't it be better to undergo correction, even ages of it if the ultimate end was all things reconciled to God including say Judas? If that is the case then why would it have been better that he not be born? It seems that even though correction may be very harsh that it's to correct ones own stubborness, something that needs to be done. It seems one would be greatful in the end, not better off not being born.

It's better to have never existed then to undergo correction leading to eternal life, dwelling with God? I still don't get it. The outcome of eternal life seems to be obviously better than non-existence.

As an aside, I wonder why Paul, who risked his life many times to spread the gospel throughout his known world, didn't mention Gehenna even once in any of his writings. He warned people frequently about God's wrath, and the day of judgment, but never referred to "Gehenna" or the Lake of Fire. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

He does contrast the "appointing of wrath" with "recieve[ing] salvation". (1 Thes 5)

Paul also taught a resurrection of the just and the unjust in Acts.

It seems like you either end up with one or the other on the day of Judgment. (Matt 25:31-46)

But to say the wide road and the narrow path both lead (eventually) to life is an opposite teaching than Jesus gave. I don't think Paul taught otherwise.

[Guest]

sean wrote:

But to say the wide road and the narrow path both lead (eventually) to life is an opposite teaching than Jesus gave. I don't think Paul taught otherwise.

Jesus also said that "few" find the narrow path. was this a true statement, or not? he didn't say "few in this life;" he just said "few." if the actual statement of Jesus was true, isnt it rather presumptious to suggest that he really meant to say "few in this life?"

i know that the traditional view is unpalatable to many people (i guess i really didnt realize it until i joined this forum- i have not previously heard people arguing against it); but it just seems that Jesus, and the apostles, gave either/or propositions. neither Jesus nor the apostles gave any explicit indication of the possibility of "getting saved" after death, did they? he told the one thief on the cross that he would be with him in paradise; but he didnt tell the other thief "oh-- you too(someday)."

the traditional view has been so ingrained into my psyche that i am not sure I will ever be convinced 100% to the contrary. right now i guess i am 25% convinced to an alternate view (conditional immortality) but universalism, to me at least, seems to dilute the gospel to the point of being worthless.

TK

[Guest]

As an aside, I wonder why Paul, who risked his life many times to spread the gospel throughout his known world, didn't mention Gehenna even once in any of his writings. He warned people frequently about God's wrath, and the day of judgment, but never referred to "Gehenna" or the Lake of Fire. Does anyone have any ideas about this?

To me there is a simple answer to this question. I know that you all don't seem to give this idea any merit, but it makes sense to me. Salvation does not refer to obtaining a position in the afterlife; it refers to finding new birth in this life wherein faith in Christ will lead us away from sin and unto righteousness. Eternal life does not refer to immortality (life after death) but to a spiritual resurrection from being dead in sin. Everlasting punishment does not refer to some condition of torment after death but to God's correction that leads to repentance in this life. If you view things this way then it makes a lot more sense.

Todd

[_mdh]

Isn't that the point though, the cities (like Edom) are no more, they are not going to repent and come back. They are gone forever. Doesn't that still point away from a universalist view? If the events that came upon Edom are likened to the events that come upon those thrown into the lake of fire, then how is it that they can repent when in this example above Edom cannot? It's chance to change/repent is gone forever.

Just a thought.

I guess I am not following your thinking. It is true the nation of Edom is gone. Whether the nation will come back or not, I do not know. What happened to the people who were destroyed in the judgment on the Edomites, seems to me a separate question. Will they not all be judged fairly by the One to whom we must all give account, the one who knows our weaknesses and was tempted (tested) in all points just as we are? What verdict He will give, I do not know. I do know I trust Him.

I think it is far too easy to read a passage such as the one from Rev. 14, or Is. 34, and read into it a final judgment on individuals where there is no hope for repentance. I suspect this has to do with what we have been told to read into it, more than what it actually says. I am not at all sure the passage in Rev. 14 is speaking of the final judgment, and the Lake of Fire.

I could be wrong.

Mike

[Guest]

i know that the traditional view is unpalatable to many people (i guess i really didnt realize it until i joined this forum- i have not previously heard people arguing against it

TK,

I think this is because very few people have heard that there is an alternative view(s). Once I was exposed to alternatives I realized that the traditional view needed to be reconsidered.

Todd

[Guest]

[I am not at all sure the passage in Rev. 14 is speaking of the final judgment, and the Lake of Fire.

Mike,

I believe it is speaking of the tireless conviction of the Holy Spirit in this life upon those who are disobedient.

Todd

[Guest]

Jesus also said that "few" find the narrow path. was this a true statement, or not? he didn't say "few in this life;" he just said "few." if the actual statement of Jesus was true, isnt it rather presumptious to suggest that he really meant to say "few in this life?"


TK, Jesus is called "the savior of the world" , isn't it rather presumptious to believe only the few on the narrowpath in this life is meant by the "world?"