All Comments for: Three Models of Hell | Christianity Today

Free Newsletters:

RSS Feeds |

Audio |

Twitter

Home > 2007 > February

Christianity Today, February, 2007 |

GOOD QUESTION

Three Models of Hell

"Is hell nothing more than eternal torture of the unsaved? Why would God engage in punishment that seems so cruel?" -- Tony De Luca, New York, New York

R. Todd Mangum | posted 2/12/2007 09:00AM

God would not be party to anything as sordid as torture; Christians can agree on that. However, theologians are divided about how eternal judgment is not tantamount to such.

Two competing answers are ...

[Reader Reviews]

Average User Rating:

Rate and Comment on this article

Displaying 1 - 25 of 56 comments.

Page: 1 2 3

Show All

Gary	Posted: February 23, 2007 7:04 PM

The idea of an immortal soul comes from Greek philosophy not from Scritpure. In Gen. God breathes into Adam the breath of life and he became a "living soul (being)." The NT declares that 8 souls were saved in the ark. These were Noah and his family - living, breathing human beings, not bodiless souls. Also, God has promised to put an end to sin, to its very existence. If unsaved people were to be consigned to the flames of hell for eternity, then sin would also exist throughout eternity in them and would always be a blight on His otherwise perfect universe. Finally, at the final judgment the unrighteous are resurrected to receive their sentence which means that they are in bodily form. The human body burns. Fire burns fuel. If the flames of hell are hot enough to melt the elements, surely they would consume mere human flesh. For this not to be the case, God would have to use Divine creative power to continually re-create human bodies for eternity to keep the flames alive. God forbid!

William Stuart

Posted: February 22, 2007 5:46 PM

Since universalism, annihilationism, and purgatory do not appear tenable in light of the biblical text (to me at least), the article implicilty argues for the eternal torment viewpoint. Being absent from the benevolent presence of God would surely involve such torment, and that seems consistent with the parables told by Jesus himself, and with the Book of Revelation's description of the second death.

Beth Muir

Posted: February 22, 2007 2:13 PM


Isn't the idea of simply being separated from God for all eternity enough of the definition of hell for any of us? We are ever searching for this ultimate connection with Him and to have that possibility taken away forever, to me would be hell. There is nothing worse.

Jim Gift

Posted: February 22, 2007 12:37 PM

God didn't prepare Hell for people He created it for those angels who rebelled against him. However, those who will go there go by choice for not accepting God's provision from Hell. God is all powerful, all knowing, everywhere present and eternal. Who are we to question what God will do or not do. Do we know His mind? Are we capable of understanding very much about God? He will do what He has purposed. We can wonder whether a loving God will do or not do something, but if we are wrong who does it hurt? Ourselves. If we respond to His love and trust Him as Savior, living in a loving relationship with Him our destiny is fixed in Heaven with Him. Let's concentrate on bring others into that relationship and warn people that God is not someone you want to MESS WITH.

Ribin

Posted: February 21, 2007 10:56 PM


see http://enginepuller.com

mike rucker

Posted: February 19, 2007 6:16 PM

Andrew DiNardo, et al. most of the passages we read as "obviously" about a burning hell are viewed through lens of our own presuppositions. it's easy to say, "believe what you want, but the Bible is clear" - the very diversity of views we have here proves the case do be just the opposite. the rich man and lazarus isn't about a fiery hell. matthew is the only gospel that seems to stick to the theme; look at his intended audience and ask why that is. in american christendom, especially, the "burn in hell" picture is so ingrained that we will read those overtones into anything that discusses eternal judgment. i was reading today about "the grass that grows for a season, and is then tossed into the fire" - and wondered how many times that passage had been read a reference to hell. let's take this away from the post here. email me (mrtullfan@bellsouth.net) if you want to have some discussions moderated. but be polite and tolerant of other views, please.

Andrew DiNardo

Posted: February 18, 2007 5:01 PM


If you are struggling with this writer's views on hell then you need to take your argument up with Jesus. Sorry David (Barton), these beliefs are not medieval but biblical. You may not embrace the bible's teaching, but don't be foolish and deny that they are not there.

Fred Gazendam

Posted: February 16, 2007 10:40 PM


Articles like this one and many more from Christianity Today are most inspiring! I print them and give those print to a doctor and hid family who are Christians. The doctor's wife is sharing all such Christian articles with patients in the waiting room because they see more people then I do.

Colin

Posted: February 16, 2007 7:44 PM


I feel that Todd should declare his belief in hell in his article. Studying the views of theologians throughout history is one thing, but what he believes on hell according to the teaching of the Bible is another thing. What does the Bible say about hell, not the church fathers?

rob	Posted: February 16, 2007 12:12 PM


a.raad...your interpretations of the Bible are pure and wholly true, not influenced by any theologians? I doubt it.

Phil DiLernia

Posted: February 16, 2007 11:40 AM

I know Todd personally and for those who beleive he may have "missed" this point or that point really miss THE point. He is providing an open platform for us to reconcile our beliefs concerning Hell and then to allow our apologetic, both in and out of church, to be more effective and impacting for the truth. Todd has held firm in his understanding of the reality of Hell, he has held firm in his understanding that God does punish people for their lack of faith, and he has held firm in his understanding that God's view of things is far different than ours. On the other hand it seems that some of our co-bloggers are holding firm in areas in such a way as if they believe they exhaustively understand the mind of God. I thought the "good book" says that His ways are not our ways and that His ways are not even understandable to people who are saddled with deceitful hearts. Thanks Todd for sparking a good debate and keep up the good work. Phil DiLernia

Chris Bradford

Posted: February 15, 2007 10:20 PM


RE: Mr. Rucker's comment... What an odd tangle of assumptions that appear to underlie these judgments of the author. Bizarre sort of attempt at criticism or dialogue.

Ronald Rehfeldt

Posted: February 15, 2007 7:55 AM

Consider Pascal's wager. In his view one cannot lose by being a Christian. It does not take into account that Creator God may have a criterion somewhat different from that expostulated by neolithic religions: that is, God calls human beings to function with the intelligence and rationality He/She/It has given as a primary gift. Those who use their reasoning powers are blessed. Those who do not are condemned to torment, not everlasting torment, but the torment of ignorance, superstition, anti-natural views (such as homosexuality, a condition that pervades nature). Rober t Frost said it all: "If you forgive my little jokes on you, God, I will forgive your little big one on me." Quite irreverent of Mr. Frost, quite blasphemous, quite close on the mark. Ronald Rehfeldt, Rockford, IL

Silva

Posted: February 14, 2007 11:13 PM

Check out: Shedding Light on Dark Age Doctrines: Eternal Torment : C:\Documents and Settings\Owner.HOME-1DE37A8A33\My Documents\Hell.mht When evil people die, are they sent alive to a place called hell where they will writhe in agony forever in eternal flames? The doctrine of hell-fire is largely based on the assumption of an immortal soul (being eternally alive in the death condition), but our previous issue of The End Times established that there was no Biblical foundation for that commonly held doctrine. The dead are really dead—not alive—awaiting the promised resurrection. Indeed, there is no consciousness or pain or any feeling whatever in the grave. God tells us the penalty for sin: “the soul that sinneth, it shall die.” God sentenced Adam to death for the sin of disobedience—there was no mention of an immortal soul and burning eternally for sin. So how, then, did this doctrine of a burning hell enter church doctrine? Three factors led to the wrong interpretation of

Manfred

Posted: February 13, 2007 10:57 PM

Who, in his right mind, would reject God's offer of salvation and chose hell? All I can think of is to try to work out my salvation with fear and trembling. I don't understand why I procrastinate and leave things undone or why I pamper myself in the face of poverty and suffering in the world. How can I be justified only becouse I regularly ask for forgiveness and those who don't understand go to hell? I just hope that God is even more mercyfull than what the bible teaches. Perhaps our problem is literal interpretation of scripture?

George T.

Posted: February 13, 2007 8:42 PM


This article serves as a reminder that God is still supreme. Too much is being said today,as "popular culture"that God does not punish because He loves us.Love dors not equal to full liberty and irresponsible acts that we are commiting in the knowledge that God simply forgives. Yes, He IS the ULTIMATE and SUPREME judge.This has to be fully understood and held close BEFORE our actions.

mike rucker

Posted: February 13, 2007 8:10 PM

dr. radmacher was my theology professor when i was at western seminary/phx. a man with a huge heart and a sharp mind. (hello, if you're reading this.) a wise man, a man of God, a man of integrity. but on hell, he and i are in different camps today. this topic is very important to me because, as a teenager, i latched harder than most onto the teaching that God was going to eternally burn the unsaved. and as a result i lost the first 46 years of my life to the burden of "saving the world". i would like to see a reporter of a major magazine or newspaper spell out for the public the doctrine of hell taught in most churches on sundays. presented properly it would come across almost like child abuse: "johnny, God is going to burn your friends in hell when they die unless you save them." should we allow churches to indoctrinate kids with these beliefs without any accountability? i say, "no." words are very powerful. use them at your own risk... http://escroll.blogspot.com

Martha Huntley

Posted: February 13, 2007 12:04 PM


Very disappointing article. Almost blows off an important issue. I trust God to handle the heaven/hell situation because I know He is more just, more merciful, more knowing, and more loving than anyone else. Period.

H. D. Schmidt

Posted: February 13, 2007 11:49 AM

Conversely, the other ever confused issue as to what happens to a saintat death for instance, that in my estimation, needs urgent atttention also. The case being that suicide bombers are even promissed immediate heaven plus! Question: When Jesus resurrected Lazarus from the dead, did Jesus asked Lazarus' spirit/soul, to return from heaven where he supposedly must have gone when he died and seing all the beauty and peace etc., to resume again a sinful suffering, with temptation and a sin life, and than have to die again? Besides, why for the trumpet to sound to wake those that are sleeping in the graves etc.? So, Mr. Tugman, here is another agenda item. For the record, I am a Seventh-day Adventist that does not subscribe to the idea that at death "something" goes to heaven other than believe that God, in his registry, if you please my name is there and at resurrection, should I die before Jesus returns, and my Angel will come for me along with all those who did not refuse his mercy!

Elaine

Posted: February 13, 2007 11:34 AM

This Christian doctrine of hell has converted more to atheism than any other single church belief. The entire Old and New Testaments were written during a time when punishment for infractions were extremely harsh, and so the writers described their world. Today, while we incarcerate and still have capital punishment, we are far less retributive and cruel. We do not burn people at the stake. Has Christianity advanced so little since that time that we still must abide by the perceptions of peoples two thousand years ago?

ShadowLander

Posted: February 13, 2007 10:23 AM

A thought about what hell might be all about: What if there is not any "active torture/punishment" for our sins? What if hell consists of not having the capacity to enjoy God and His glory as much as He enjoys Himself and His glory? Can you imagine what it would be like to be in the presence of people who are completely enjoying someone, someone you can see, but you are completely unable to enjoy? What if the people enjoying God are so taken up with the wonder and glory of Who He Is that other people, especially those who are not able to enjoy God, are as if they were invisible to them? I wonder if this might not cause weeping and gnashing of teeth?

Stanley Baldwin

Posted: February 13, 2007 10:12 AM

All of these discussions about hell omit the essential question. The real question is, what does hell do to God? If, as we say, God unconditionally loves everyone, and yearns over us so strongly that he sent his Son to die for us, how can he be content for us to go to hell? Does he stop loving us? Does he still love us but must finally and forever see us lost? He dwells in heaven fully aware that his beloved creatures are suffering endlessly? The problem with hell as traditionally understood is that it essentially sends God there.

gordy

Posted: February 13, 2007 7:44 AM

Todd - While it may be hard for you to hear, Mr. DePaolo is right in that your article does not begin to do justice to this question. Your own "Traditionalist" position dominates the very short article, which does not even mention the term Conditionalist or Conditionalism ... a growing position among evangelicals. Two central verses to Christianity, "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" and "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord." when interpreted literally uphold Conditionalism. Why do we have so much trouble understanding "perish" and "death" as the penalty for sin? And why do Traditionalists consistently avoid Christ's words in Matthew 10:28, "Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

Jimmy Gee

Posted: February 13, 2007 7:32 AM

The article does a good job of describing both views. But, God does not torture, He punishes. He is all knowing, all powerful, all just, all loving, and all merciful. Who are we, imperfect man, to question what He does? Hell is hot and it is painful (Matthew 13:41-42). How long will it last? Just as long as Heaven lasts. Why? Because the same word (greek - aionion) concerning the duration of Heaven is also used concerning the duration of Hell in Matthew 25:46. If one will be quick (the annihilationist view of Hell) then the other will be just as quick. If one will be eternal, the other will be eternal. You can't "have your cake and eat it too" on this one.

Y C Whang

Posted: February 13, 2007 3:21 AM

God's eternity shoud be ascribed to all of his attributes. As his love and mercy are eternal and limitless, his anger and punishment too. That is one of the reason why sin is so horiffic and the atonement of Christ so great. If we reduce the magnitude of God's righteous anger against sin, the love of God revealed in the Cross of Christ would be reduced too. Hell as an eternal place of torment is a proof that God is eternal and limitless not only in his love and mercy but also in his righteous anager against sin.

Page: 1 2 3

E-mail this page

Write CT

Print this article

Post a comment