On The Duration Of Hell

[MarkFL]

Hello CH Community! :wave:

In the church I raised (Baptist), we were taught that hell is a place of eternal torment by fire, complete spiritual separation from God and great regret for having rejected the Gospel. I have recently read some posts here that suggest some folks believe it to be a spiritual consumption/destruction and is short-lived and simply results in the annihilation of the unbeliever's soul.

So, I wanted to create a poll to see what you all believe regarding this question, and if you care to, I would like to see your reasoning why.

Thank you in advance for your participation and thoughts.

 

[psalms 91]

It is a place of eternal toment. It talks of hell being that place and also says that it will be cast into the lake of fire, so it is eternal

 

[Romanos]

Hell is eternal. The second option is called Annihilationism and I would say it goes against Scripture found in Revelation.

 

[Stravinsk]

Annihilationist here.

Malachi 4:3

Fits nicely with Matthew 13:41-43, 49-50

Nothing that is ash still burns. It's "fuel" is spent. It is gone - destroyed - turned into smoke.

"Smoke rising forever" is not equal to "constantly burning" (Revelation 14:9-11).

Further, if the saints are "avenged" (Revelation 19:2), this indicates a past action, done and done with.

For Hell to be "burning forever" then each person in it has to be somehow regenerated to "burn again" - and if God's wrath is constant - then the language should be "constantly avenging" the saints, instead of at some point being "avenged".

If Malachi is a reliable prophet - then those ashes that the saints walk on should be regenerated so God can torture them some more with fire, to be turned into ash again.

NOPE.

I am a Deist - but I have some Christian beliefs. Nothing to my knowledge in Matthew, John, revelation or the OT prophets (I disregard Luke, Mark and much of Saul/Paul) definitively points to a sort of regenerative hell where people are tormented for eternity. In my mind there are multiple reasons not to take this interpretation.

 

[psalms 91]

Who says you burn up, it says tormented not eradicated. With God all things are possible and if temporary why is hell cast in the lake of fire after the thoussand year reign

 

[Stravinsk]

Who says you burn up, it says tormented not eradicated. With God all things are possible and if temporary why is hell cast in the lake of fire after the thoussand year reign

Gosh I don't know. When I burn wood like from an uprooted tree, it burns, turns to smoke which rises and spreads up and out for a non measurable time (for-ever). What's left? Ash. When the wood is completely burned (tormented if dead wood could feel), then it's gone, right?

I'm sure if Malachi or Yeshua wanted to indicate what is plainly obvious to everyone who has watched things destroyed through fire - to indicate something different - like they would not *actually* be destroyed but somehow regenerated so that God could exercise vengeance constantly, then they could have used different language and a different analogy.

They didn't - so I'm left with the plainest most simple meaning. Destruction actually means destruction. I'm sure it hurts to be destroyed through burning, but no, the burning cannot last forever once something has been destroyed thoroughly. It's gone and the only things left are rising smoke and ash.

Fits Malachi, Yeshua's teachings in Matt and Revelation.

 

[psalms 91]

Gosh I don't know. When I burn wood like from an uprooted tree, it burns, turns to smoke which rises and spreads up and out for a non measurable time (for-ever). What's left? Ash. When the wood is completely burned (tormented if dead wood could feel), then it's gone, right?

I'm sure if Malachi or Yeshua wanted to indicate what is plainly obvious to everyone who has watched things destroyed through fire - to indicate something different - like they would not *actually* be destroyed but somehow regenerated so that God could exercise vengeance constantly, then they could have used different language and a different analogy.

They didn't - so I'm left with the plainest most simple meaning. Destruction actually means destruction. I'm sure it hurts to be destroyed through burning, but no, the burning cannot last forever once something has been destroyed thoroughly. It's gone and the only things left are rising smoke and ash.

Fits Malachi, Yeshua's teachings in Matt and Revelation.

Peroblem is that He is talking about the soul, not the body and the soul is what is tormented. Everything I read tells me that the soul is eternal rather than temporal

 

[Stravinsk]

Peroblem is that He is talking about the soul, not the body and the soul is what is tormented. Everything I read tells me that the soul is eternal rather than temporal

I suggest a reading of John chapter 5. Specifically verses 21-29.

Better yet, read Matt 10:28.

Read it carefully. What does it say? "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."

Why was Yeshua just kidding around? The soul is eternal, so it can't be destroyed, right?

Enter the doctrine of a cruel cruel God who tortures people forever. This has got to be the most obviously man made twist of Yeshua's words that has ever been fostered on mankind.

Further evidence: The tree of life (that is - eternal life) was REMOVED from Adam and Eve's reach after they fell. There is a good reason for that - God didn't want them living forever in a rebellious state. And yet a great deal of Christendom believes that somehow all souls are eternal - "living forever" - either in a tortured and condemned state or in harmony with God - because of the doctrine that all souls are created "immortal".

This reminds me. I need to give a few certain respected books less stars and comment on this major blunder by a respected spokesman for Christian thought.