Why I Can’t Just Say, “To Hell!” With Hell (Even If I Wanted To)

Hell is the new Nintendo.

At least it is amongst blogging Christendom as of late. Nothing can quite get public dialogue heated (?!) quicker than some good ole’ fire and brimstone-esque debate. In this day many, even those who claim Christianity, want to say, “To hell with hell!”…at least as the Bible plainly teaches it.

Hell is an immensely important doctrinal matter, because if eternal destinies of individuals are at stake then what we believe about hell cannot be taken too seriously or studied too carefully.

I bet John the Revelator believed in a literal hell…

It is no matter whether it offends our modern sensibilities and we feel the notion of a literal place called “hell” is arcane and puritanical. What we “feel” about it has no bearing on the issue. The most pressing concern at hand is this: Is it biblical to posit hell as a place of constant actual torment and eternal spiritual separation from God? Or is hell just self wrought consequences of bad choices which we reap only in the here and now?

Let’s begin the discourse in Revelation 20:10. Admittedly, one can’t deny the heavily symbolic nature of Revelation and the difficulties that flow out of such language, but all symbols symbolize something. Symbols are used to illustrate a greater truth that can’t be wrapped in literal language, not a lesser truth. While symbolic descriptions of hell sound bad enough, we can be assured the reality is even worse than can be imagined (thankfully this works on the flip side with heaven too!). 

The fundamental nature of hell is spiritual separation from God, but this view does not account for all the particulars of hell. Revelation 20:10 verse to help illustrate this point: “the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet also were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” There are several key inferences to make here: the lake of fire consumes the person, just as waters consume any person thrown into a physical lake; it is a place from which they cannot escape; the imagery of fire and sulphur is intended to show extreme pain and suffering that extends to all the senses. Furthermore, the punishment is obviously eternal, continual, total and conscious (“tormented day and night for ever and ever”) and human beings will be there, for the beast and the false prophet are humans.

It’s clear: “Anyone whose name is not written in the book of life will be thrown into the lake of fire.” (Rev 20:10)

Let’s Not Be Hypocritical About Eternity

Many proponents of a non literal temporal hell claim if we had a more thorough understanding of Jewish historical context we could not hold to the traditional view of hell. This is not corroborated by careful study though. The ancient Jewish belief of humanity includes an immortality of the human soul and human body, which is in direct contrast to the gentile view of a separated body and soul. Daniel 12:1-2 is a confirmation: “ . . but at that time your people shall be delivered, every one whose name shall be found written in the book. And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.” If we hold tightly to the view of heaven as conscious eternal bliss, how can we not hold to the view of hell as conscious and eternal torment? Jesus confirms this when he says the unrighteous “will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” The biblical text is plain and does not change the grammatical meaning of “eternity” when referencing heaven or hell.

I find it hypocritical (and an indictment on human nature) that no one is propagating a “temporal” heaven with the same logic they claim a “temporal” hell. Could it be because we are making our interpretations of Scripture based on our subjective inclinations (eisegesis) and not the objective ordinary meaning of the text (exegesis)?

What can we make of Jesus’ NT exhortation to “Fear Him who can destroy both body and soul in hell” (Matthew 10:28)? Hell is the place the body and soul will be eternally destroyed by a Holy loving God. Hell is not just the suicidal and self-inflicted internal propensities of misguided men (though it is that in part), Hell is the external judgment of God being poured out on sinful men (Romans 1:18-21).

Why else would we be charged to “Fear Him”? If all religions end up in the same relativistic celestial melting pot whom is there to fear?

The most heart wrenching display of the nature of hell is Christ’s separation from His Father on the cross. In this tangible portrayal of hell we do see physical suffering, which is only a minute part of this hell, but we see even greater the spiritual suffering of the Son who cried, “Why have you forsaken Me?” In hell, all the goodness and grace of the Father is suspended from the person and they are completely isolated from anything of redeeming value. Self is the wretched cruel king in hell. This Spiritual suffering is the most severe aspect of hell, but this in no way denies the physical suffering of the individual.

Hell has an immensely devastating affect on the whole person. Hell happens to you and in you for eternity.

Hell Is Giving One What They Really Want

When we reject the hell Christ took on the cross for us, we are accepting the hell we deserve for an eternity. God gives us what we truly desire. As CS Lewis once said, “Either people will say to God, ‘Thy will be done,’ or God will say to them, ‘Thy will be done.'” The self willed, self absorbed and God-hating soul will continue in that trajectory into eternity. They wouldn’t want it any other way.

Remember who we are rebelling against when we sin. This is no mere Joe Blow off the street, it is the High King and perfect Son we are scorning. This is a high crime with high consequences. When blaspheming the infinitely worthy ONE there are necessarily infinitely dire implications. The punishment (eternal hell) fits the crime (eternal treason).

This is why the love of God and the wrath of God are inextricably linked. “This is love not that we have loved God but that He has loved us and given His Son as a propitiation for our sins” (1 John 4:10) In an ironic display of gospel ignorance many who claim “Love Wins” apart from God’s wrath, are actually nullifying the love of God. God loves sinners because He poured out His just displeasure on His perfect Son who died as our substitute. Clearly, a denial of God’s wrath is a denial of Christ’s propitiation (wrath bearing sacrifice) which in turn is an outright denial of God’s love.

Universalism, in the end, destroys the very thing it is attempting to uphold.

There is no biblical reason to uphold purgatory or annihilationism as a more sensitive route to hell. Christ was the most loving and sensitive man who ever walked the earth yet He talked more about hell than all other biblical writers combined. It was probably because He was more qualified to speak of such a horrible reality considering He was the creator of it, just as all things were created through Him (Colossians 1:15-17). The domesticated demure Jesus we have constructed in our minds actually declares in the “Rich man and Lazarus” parable that hell is place of personal consciousness, eternal torment, and no second chances (Luke 16:19-31).

Even if we reject the hellfire and brimstone hyper fundamentalist preaching of the traditionalist past, we would do well to give an ear to what Jesus has to say.

If there were no hell then Jesus is a liar.

Our distaste for hell will not make it go away. In reality, that nasty taste is designed by God so that we may shun hell and desire the heavenly kingdom He purchased for us with His own Son’s life. We may very well wish the notion of hell would just go to hell. But we would be consigning the love of God, the blood of Jesus, and all the goodness on heaven and earth to the same slippery fate.

Bryan Daniels

Author: Bryan Daniels

I am a follower of Jesus, a husband to Jessica, and a father of three boys: Josiah, Gideon and Judah. I teach high school math as a job, read reformed theology as a hobby, and write this blog just for kicks. With the rest of my time I coach football and track.

54 thoughts on “Why I Can’t Just Say, “To Hell!” With Hell (Even If I Wanted To)”

  1. Thank you Bryan. This needs to be said. This needs to be heard. Satan is repeating himself with universalism’ “You will not surely die.” and too many of us are being deceived again.

  2. Congrats on tackling such a difficult subject.

    You seem to dismiss the idea rather quickly that looking at the Bible historically calls the existence of Hell (and Heaven, for that matter) into question. But I think this would be worth looking at again. I’m sure you’re aware that the Old Testament only talks about Sheol. And Sheol is a place that didn’t seem especially good or bad, just a realm of the dead similar to the Greek Hades. After all, both Job and Jacob talk about going there — two men that we would expect to make it to Heaven.

    Obviously, Hell would be an important thing to know about, but the only OT passage I’m aware of that addresses it is the one you mentioned in Daniel 12. That seems like a late notice for something so important, even if the passage was really written during the days of the Persian Empire. Of course most historians believe Daniel was written much later than that, during the reign of Antiochus Epiphanes. Either way, you’d think it would get some mention back in the Pentateuch, if it were a real place.

    Also, when the OT talks about Heaven, it’s only in reference to the sky or the place where God lives, never in reference to a place in which the saved can go.

    Just something to think about, even though it carries huge implications.

    1. On your “Sheol” comment. According Johnston’s work “Shades of Sheol”, a detailed study on the subject, Sheol is primarily a destination for the ungodly. The righteous only envision Sheol as their destiny at times when they are afflicted or in great danger, or face an unhappy or untimely death (as the case with Jacob and Job). However, mention of Sheol is conspicuously absent from accounts of those who die at the end of a full and happy life.

    2. If you notice, Heaven is also absent from those accounts.

      Also, I’d disagree with Johnston’s assessment. Job refers to Sheol as a place to hide from God’s wrath — does that sound like Hell to you? And Jacob says that he would be reunited with Joseph there (whom he presumed was dead). Did Jacob think that Joseph had gone to Hell, or just that he was dead?

      Yes, there are some references to Sheol that sound negative, but no more negative than one would speak about dying. And when you consider the more positive (or at least neutral) references that I mentioned, it’s clear that it can’t be talking about Hell as described in the New Testament. It’s either just the grave, or it’s an afterlife that both good and bad go to.

      By the way, this also explains why God always talked about physical consequences in the OT and never spiritual. When he warned the Israelites about what would happen if they didn’t obey him, it was about being cut off from their people, or dying, or not having well-off descendants, or being taken into captivity, etc.

      1. I agree there were serious physical consequences, but again, those were to point to greater spiritual consequences. Adam and Eve were banished physically from the garden but also experienced a real ethereal shame.

        It’s is similar on the cross. Christ suffered physically for man’s sin, but it was nothing compared to the spiritual suffering under God’s wrath. The physical reality points to a greater spiritual reality taking place.

        I admit that the OT is more vague in the particulars than the New, but that is directly tied to the greater revelation Christ brings to all things. Men in the OT had shadows of the truth/salvation, Christ was the fulfillment (book of Hebrews touches this continually). Again, I believe that is one of the reasons He speaks on it more than any other commentator in OT or NT Scripture. God reserved the deepest revelation of hell to be revealed through His Son.

      2. But do they really point to greater spiritual consequences? Is the OT vague because it was waiting for Christ’s revelation, or because Jewish mythology evolved over time? Were the NT writers simply giving a fuller revelation, or were they reinventing their religion? To me, that’s the crux of the issue. Which explanation matches up better with what we see? Why are Heaven and Hell really only talked about centuries after the Law of Moses? Is it because God just didn’t think it was important to share with all the people who came before, or had Jewish mythology just not formulated those concepts yet?

  3. I must admit when some of the widely known leaders (I mention no names) of the church began presenting views on this topic that went against the historical view (Jesus’ view), I purchased a couple of their works to see what argument they could find that caused their abrupt departure from orthodoxy. In the end, I am persuaded to find the same conclusion as your post reveals. To lessen the degree of the wrath of God against sin brings the entire faith of Christianity crashing down. It makes the cross simply a supplemental addition for a comfy moral life. Jesus endured the wrath of His Father so we could have a morally good life? That seems ludicrous when we survey the lives of His Apostles and even many throughout the history of the Church! Paul endured beatings, imprisonment, and martyrdom so that the message of a good life here on earth could be proclaimed? While I would agree eternity begins here for the believer, I think Jesus was saving us from much more than what ‘hell’ may be experienced here. One really has to wonder why the warning… “Flee the wrath to come!” Good and provocative words we need friend. God bless.

    1. i don’t seem to understand nearly as well as you do, but i do know the thought of me, personally going to hell, any hell, no matter where it is in the end, is the reason I follow God. I feel that sometimes I am in a hell here on earth, and to possibly go to another hell when I die, is something I choose not to do if I can help it

  4. I also wanted to comment on your last point that Hell is giving some people exactly what they want. I think this is one of the most revolting and absurd ideas I’ve ever heard. I gotta give props to whoever thought this up, because it’s a brilliant attempt to blame people for their own misfortunes, but it’s also highly offensive and ridiculous.

    When a political dissident in North Korea is tortured to death, did he get what he wanted? Did the Native Americans get what they wanted when they tried to hang on to their lands? Did Matthew Shepard get what he wanted when he was beaten to death for being gay?

    To say that people who aren’t Christians have willfully rejected the King of Kings and have spit upon God’s sacrifice is simply naive. In order to do that, one would have to already honestly believe that Jesus was the actual son of God and that Jehovah is the one true God. But that’s just not the case. What benefit would there be for someone to actually believe all of Christianity, but rebel against it? It’s ludicrous.

    Instead, most people who aren’t Christians have very good reasons for not being Christians. They’re not convinced that Christianity is true. Do you really think that Muslims or Hindus secretly believe Christianity is true, but they’re just living in rebellion?

    This is why the concept of Hell is such a problem. If Christianity is true, then there are an incredible amount of people who are sincerely wrong about their beliefs. They’re putting forth effort, but they’re confused about which religion their effort should be directed toward. To think that a loving and righteous God would eternally torture people because they were genuinely mistaken or confused is morally reprehensible. Christians can’t even agree on every aspect of their religion, yet they expect someone who was born into a completely different culture with possibly very little education or exposure to the outside world will somehow realize their own religion is wrong and then find the right one? That’s a pretty tall order. Especially since if we’re to follow the Christians’ example, textual inconsistencies, immoral teachings, or illogical doctrines are no reason to throw out our religious texts — so why should someone of another religion hold their text to a higher standard than the one Christians hold to the Bible?

    1. Thanks for your comments Nate.

      Nate, I believe your analogies here are also offensive and ridiculous. I’m sure you would like to presuppose God has some North Korean dictator or homosexual killer, and unbelievers as harmless victims, but that is not the case.

      Those analogies are of sinful mankind committing atrocities against sinful mankind and it is inherently evil, for it is destroying what is not theirs. They are doing only what a Holy God can do to sinful man. God is owner, designer, creator and sustainer of all, and He is never guilty of taking what is not already His. Our human nature hates that, but His sovereignty knows no bounds. Hell says we come to grips with that revelation in this life or the next.

      Mankind is much more like the criminals you condemn here and the Son of God is really the victim hanging on the cross for our sins.

      God doesn’t eternally torture people who are “genuinely mistaken.” It has nothing to do with one’s education or culture they are born into. He gives enough of his voice and revelation for all to respond or reject (In creation and their conscience), and if they reject and harden their hearts they get what they deserve (Acts 17, Psalms 19). They rejected the truth given to them. They are judged for it.

      1. God doesn’t eternally torture people who are “genuinely mistaken.” It has nothing to do with one’s education or culture they are born into. He gives enough of his voice and revelation for all to respond or reject (In creation and their conscience), and if they reject and harden their hearts they get what they deserve (Acts 17, Psalms 19). They rejected the truth given to them. They are judged for it.

        That’s simply not true, Bryan. If it were, then the demographics on religion wouldn’t follow such neat geographic patterns. Creation and morality can be used as evidence for a generic god, not the God of the Bible. Which is why people of every religious stripe use creation and morality as reasons to believe in their own particular gods.

        Also, I can see why you didn’t like my examples of people getting “what they wanted.” But I still think the point stands. No one would argue that the people in those examples wanted to endure what happened to them, and no one wants to go to Hell either. No matter how just of a sentence you think that is, no one would want to receive it.

        1. Sounds like a genetic fallacy to me. IE: “Christians were born into a Christian culture, therefore it is not true.”

          I suppose atheism has a nice Western geographic footprint so it can’t be true either, right?

          No, it is possible that Christianity be demonstrated true, even IF all modern believers were Christians because they were born and raised in the Church.

          1. I’m not talking about Christians, I’m talking about everyone else. Why do the vast majority of Muslims remain Muslim if Christianity is true, and if they already “know” the truth because of things like creation and morality? You’re either left with an unjust system, or you must assume that everyone who doesn’t agree with you is insincere. I would hope that you’re not okay with either of those scenarios.

            1. It goes back to what makes Christianity unique Do Muslims believe they can earn a holy God’s favor by their outward works or inherent goodness. Then he, along with any self righteous professing “Christian”, are condemned. Is there a humble and contrite heart that shuns his own effort and relies totally on the mercy of a holy God? The Muslim is more Christian than any Pharisaical believer I know then.

              It’s not an unjust system. It’s the only just system. It’s a system that judges only the heart, not the outward form, cultures, and traditions of man.

              Based on Matthew 7 I don’t believe there are as many Christians in the West as first glance would afford; and based on Acts 17 I don’t believe there are as many “unbelievers” in non Christian nations as first glance would afford.

              I do know there is a strong growing and diverse Christian church in Asia, South America, and Africa even under extreme persecution. The Middle East maybe the last frontier as a region but I still think there is a much larger underground church there than statistics could ever count.

            2. But by your standards, the Middle East is not the last frontier at all. There may be many humble and contrite Muslims there, so they would be saved, right? Because aren’t you saying that a saved person doesn’t necessarily have to be a Christian? But then what are we to make of all the other doctrinal things the NT teaches?

              But here’s the larger issue: how do you know that a system that values faith over works is the right system? It might be more appealing to you, but that doesn’t mean it’s true.

              1. I’m not saying they are saved (I can’t make that evaluation) I am saying they have a grace on them that comes from God IF they are humbly repentant of their own dead works/sin.

                My standards are dirt and mean nothing. But I believe the biblical standard is hopeful to those in foreign lands, and if they “reach out” they may know the living God because “He is not far” from each of us (Acts 17).

                God doesn’t need anything from man. Not man’s works, efforts, sacrifice etc. This is the mark of a man made religion: It stresses what man does for God. Jesus turns this on its head and says it is about what God has done/and can do for man. It’s about His work/service/sacrifice on the cross.

                I’m not sure whether I feel it’s “superior” is relevant. You hold to skeptical views I’m sure because you believe they are “superior” to other options.

              2. I’m not saying they are saved (I can’t make that evaluation) I am saying they have a grace on them that comes from God IF they are humbly repentant of their own dead works/sin.

                But how do you know that? And how is that different than being saved?

                God doesn’t need anything from man. Not man’s works, efforts, sacrifice etc. This is the mark of a man made religion: It stresses what man does for God. Jesus turns this on its head and says it is about what God has done/and can do for man. It’s about His work/service/sacrifice on the cross.

                Then why is anything else necessary? If it’s all about what God has done for us, why does faith matter? Why does being one particular religion vs another matter?

                And my last question in the previous comment wasn’t whether you think your view is superior, but why you think a faith-based salvation is the kind of system God would choose? You said you think Christianity is true because it’s the only system in which we’re saved by faith and grace. How do you know that’s the right system? That’s just like a Hindu saying that the Abrahamic religions aren’t true because they don’t teach reincarnation. How do they know reincarnation is true?


                1. “How do I know it?” His word says it. He “despises the proud” and “looks on the humble and contrite”. Who am I to say what that looks like in a different context than mine? God will judge the hearts of all men and do right accordingly (Gen 17:25)

                  Why is anything else necessary? Well, repenting and believing the gospel of grace is necessary (Mark 1:15-17). Being “born again” by the Holy Spirit is absolutely necessary (John 3:3) What is unnecessary and blatantly false is the belief that we sinful men can please a perfect Holy God. Man must necessarily shun the pride that says he is not as sinful as the gospel intimates. All man made religion gets in the way of this, so it must be repented of. God unconditionally accepts us through Christ (in conversion) and now we can please Him on the basis of His grace. Bringing up another works based religion (Hinduism) only confirms the uniqueness of the Christian gospel.

                2. Maybe I’m not being very clear. I only brought up Hinduism to show that any Hindu that rejected Christianity because it didn’t have reincarnation would be silly and short-sighted, because there’s no real reason for them to think that reincarnation would definitely be part of God’s plan.

                  By the same token, it’s not reasonable to say that Christianity must be true because it’s a faith-based system, because you have no separate revelation telling you that God would definitely use such a system. In other words, you’re starting with a gigantic assumption.

                  So why do you think Christianity is the one true religion? Just now, you said it’s because the Bible teaches it. But how do you know you can trust the Bible? It’s no secret that there are passages that seem to contradict one another, some prophecies seem to have failed (or to not have been actual prophecies at all), portions of the Bible are at odds with other contemporary historical sources, some of what it says on science is incorrect, etc, etc. So how do you know you can trust it?

                  Finally, you listed all the other things that are necessary for salvation. So if those things are necessary, how can you also say that non-Christians can still be believers? I feel kind of like you’re straddling the fence a little here. Must one be a Christian to be saved, or not? And if I’m just misunderstanding you, let me know.

                  1. Yes, you must be a “born again” Christ follower to be saved. My point (I didn’t state very well) is that there are people that are considered Muslims “culturally” (because of where they live) that actually follow Christ. I’m just saying you can’t go by labels alone. Many who profess Christ do not know him, and Jesus confirms this with His own words.

                    I don’t believe I need “separate revelation” other than the Holy Spirit and Scripture. And I’m not sure why you would bring up “separate revelation” as necessary, because I’m not convinced you would accept as evidence whatever mystical epiphany that would be either.

                    I could tell you why I believe the Bible to be authoritative and reliable, but I’m sure you have some counterpoints primed and ready to fire in your back pocket already. We could go round and round about ancient manuscripts and the reliability of biblical prophecies but I’m not sure it would do either party a service.

                    I love the dialogue, I’m just wondering: why do you ask so many questions that you know have answers which you have already pre-determined to reject? I’ll give you the last word if you wish.

                  2. I haven’t predetermined to reject anything. If answers are good, I accept them. But some of the things people call “answers” fall way short, as far as I can tell.

                    Yes, we’d probably just go round and round on the various points. But I do think it’s possible for people to change their minds, every once in a while. It happened to me, but it wouldn’t have if people hadn’t attempted the dialogue.

                    The problem of Hell is a serious issue. I think you did a good job in your post, for the most part. But I do think you’re short-changing the evidence that shows Sheol was not the same thing as Hell, and that raises some important (though uncomfortable) questions.

                    I also think the notion that people “choose” Hell is ludicrous, and I’d have a lot more respect for people if they didn’t try to use that argument. It’s just completely bogus, as I think you probably know deep down. And it’s also true that sincere people are not Christians. I would have thought that our dialogue was enough proof of that, but maybe not.

                    So those are some of the points I was trying to bring out. I’m not trying to have the last word.

                    1. I do really enjoy the discussion; Not trying to be “short” or rude in this discourse. There just wasn’t much more to be said from me at this point. Your input is always welcome. Peace and grace….

                  1. Scientology isn’t unique at all. A person has to take part in these psychobabble “auditings”, hypnosis, and give massive donations to the church/cult in order to purge themselves of past demons. It may be weird, but it’s simply about “doing stuff” to earn your salvation. Again, you’ve named religion that is manifestly WORKS BASED that highlights the unique divine nature of GRACE BASED biblical Christianity.

                  2. But we can play that game with any religion. Just pick the one thing that separates it from every other and claim that this makes it better.

                    Maybe grace-based is the right kind of religion, but how do you know? I didn’t mean earlier that you needed a separate revelation — I just meant that you need some reason for thinking grace is right other than the fact that you like it or it’s unique. So if your reason is because it’s what the Bible teaches, then you need to demonstrate why the Bible is worth believing (though I’m not saying you should do it in this comment section).

  5. Excellent brief treatment of a difficult subject! Especially on the idea of metaphors pointing us to deeper truth – like the idea of fire and darkness. Those two don’t go together. Yet they describe a deeper reality of experience void of God. I’ve been planning on writing about hell for some time, mostly focusing on an experience I had that helped me understand what the “burning” is all about. Hope to write about that soon. Right now I’m tackling a deeper understanding of gender, and why issues like same-sex marriage are deeply personal for God. Anyway, thanks for taking this subject head-on.

  6. Excellent article Bryan. I agree completely. People can argue all they want about God being unjust, or how a loving. God would not send anyone to hell.
    It all boils down to a few points.
    God create all including us. God makes the rules, what is sin, the penalty for sin etc.
    The penalty for sinning is death, and refusing God is a sin.
    God in His great mercy made a way out for us. Every human is/was on the path to hell because we all sin. God built another Path, and He stands at the junction of the pathways and says to man; trust in Me, take this path that leads to life. The path you are on now leads to death.

    If people choose not to accept the free gift of God…how is that God’s fault?
    God Himself paid the debt we incurred for our sin, and then says serve Me and live how I want you to. Some take issue with that. Some take issue with anything, it is all excuses. If God says don’t do that, He is saying don’t hurt yourself.

    Choose to reject Christ, choose to suffer. God offers a huge benefit package for very little on our part. He Himself bought your future…what more do you want?

  7. Great article! I’ve been wondering about this verse in Genesis 3:22, though:

    “And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

    I’m confused about this verse because on the flipside, if Adam and Eve had’ve eaten of the Tree of Life in their fallen state, then they would’ve lived forever – which God obviously didn’t want at that time. I sometimes wonder if this means that people who don’t accept eternal life through Jesus Christ WILL cease to exist sometime in the distant future? I’m just not 100% sure about either view.

    What do you think this verse means, Bryan…or anyone else?

    1. Thought I should clarify something I said in my above comment where I stated, “I’m just not 100% sure about either view.” By this I meant “eternal damnation versus annihilation” and the Genesis 3:22 verse is a big part of my uncertainty.

      It sure would be great to hear some other thoughts on this. 🙂

        1. Thanks for these excellent links, Bryan! I read through the first one and some of the second one, thus far. I can see why you respect the author of the first article so much. He’s so thorough and is not afraid to give both sides of the debate along with scriptures that are used as bases for each. Looking forward to doing an exhaustive study with both of these as my guides. I believe your posting these was an answer to prayer. This issue has been bothering me for a long time. Thanks again.

          Blessings! 🙂

      1. Bryan, can you share this link with him too? It’s often helpful to see all sides of an issue when trying to figure out what’s true.


  8. I’ve just spent the last two days debating with several people who believe in a quasi form of Universalism. They all had an “explanation” and some “reasoning” but none of them could rightly divide the word or bring scripture to support they’re teachings.

    I was glad to see the article here today.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: