The Divided Waters (Part 3)

        There are further Scriptural examples which seem to express the idea of eventual universal salvation. The Bible doesn’t say we will all be accepted into eternal life just the way we are. There will be a period of correction and fine-tuning for everyone, but it sounds like we will all be reconciled after a certain amount of time. I base my interpretations on the verses shown below. They are divided into five categories: Verses about God’s mercy, verses indicating redemption after death, indications of God’s love for non-Christians, support for universal reconciliation, and verses I still have questions about.          

Verses about God’s mercy

This section features passages which express God’s forgiving and compassionate nature.

                                                

-Micah 7:19-“You will again have compassion on us; You will tread our sins underfoot and hurl all our iniquities into the depths of the sea.”

-Psalm 145:9-“The Lord is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all His works.” See Psalm 89:31-33, 145:8-9, 14; Jonah 4:2; Luke 6:35-36; Lamentations 3:31-33; Isaiah 55:7; Matthew 5:44-45; Job 6:14; Acts 14:17; James 1:5, 5:11; and 1 Timothy 1:13.

-James 2:12-13-“Mercy triumphs over judgment.” God’s judgments are ultimately merciful. See Zechariah 7:9-10, where He defines true justice as mercy and compassion.

-Ephesians 2:8-9-“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.” This is widely interpreted to mean that personal conversion can save us. However, to convert to Christianity is an action, which would fall under the category of “works.” The Bible specifically says that grace is not based on anything we do. Thus we are not saved by the act of converting, but by God’s divine mercy. See Titus 3:3-7.

-Romans 2:4-“Do you despise the riches of His goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering, not knowing that the goodness of God leads you to repentance?” God is the one who incites us to repent.

-Romans 11:26-“All Israel will be saved…He will turn away ungodliness from Jacob.” God will remove the peoples’ flaws, rather than remove the flawed people.

Verses indicating redemption after death:

This section covers the idea that we’ll be able to turn to God after we die.

-Romans 6:7- “For he that is dead is freed from sin.”

-1 Corinthians 15:26-“The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.” See 1 Corinthians 15:54. This flies in the face of an eternal hell. How could “death,” aka alienation from God, be destroyed if some people were doomed to eternal alienation from Him? If that were the case, death would not be destroyed or defeated. It would be in effect forever.

Indications of God’s love for non-Christians

These passages show that God loves people regardless of their religious beliefs.

-Isaiah 65:1-“I revealed myself to those who did not ask for Me; I was found by those who did not seek Me. To a nation that did not call on My name, I said, ‘Here am I, here am I.’”

-1 Timothy 4:10-“That is why we labor and strive, because we have put our hope in the living God, who is the Savior of all people, and especially of those who believe.” This verse says “especially,” but not “exclusively.” It affirms that salvation is foremost offered to believers, but extends to others as well. If only Christians were saved, the word “especially” would not be included, nor would it say that God is the savior of all. See Ephesians 2:14 and 3:6.

-Acts 17:28-“As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’” In this verse, Paul was speaking to non-Christians. This means that non-Christians are also God’s children. See Malachi 2:10.

-Romans 2:14-15-“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.” Nonbelievers can be morally upright as well, since God imprints His standards into everyone’s heart.

-Isaiah 54:7-10-“’For a brief moment I abandoned you (Israel), but with deep compassion I will bring you back. In a surge of anger I hid my face from you for a moment, but with everlasting kindness I will have compassion on you,’ says the Lord your Redeemer. ‘To Me this is like the days of Noah, when I swore that the waters would never again cover the earth. So now I have sworn not to be angry with you, never to rebuke you again. Though the mountains be shaken and the hills be removed, yet My unfailing love for you will not be shaken nor my covenant of peace be removed,’ says the Lord, who has compassion on you.” If the Lord said He’d never rebuke Israel again and knew that some Israelites would reject Jesus as the Messiah, He must have also been planning to save the Israelites who didn’t believe in Jesus. If all of Israel will be saved, this includes those who don’t yet worship Christ (see Romans 3:3-4). The text says that everyone will eventually come to know Christ in the age to come.

Support for universal reconciliation

This section contains verses showing that the whole world will see redemption eventually. 

-Hebrews 7:25-“He is able to save to the uttermost.” God is both able and willing.

-Ezekiel 18:4-“All souls are Mine.” Because all souls belong to God, He can do whatever He wishes to do with them. God has expressed a desire to save them all, so that is what He’ll do.

-Revelation 21:5-“Behold, I make all things new.” All things include all people.

1 Timothy 1:16: “But for that very reason I was shown mercy so that in me, the worst of sinners, Christ Jesus might display his unlimited patience as an example for those who would believe on him and receive eternal life.” Christ’s patience has no limitations, which means he has patience for everyone and the supply will never run out. 2: Peter 3:15 tells us to “count the patience of our Lord as salvation.” When these verses are read together, it follows that all will be saved.

-Romans 11:15-16-“If their (Israel) being cast away is the reconciling of the world, what will their acceptance be but life from the dead? For if the firstfruit (Israel) is holy, the lump (of humanity) is also holy.”

-2 Peter 3:9-“The Lord is not slack concerning His promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” One can repent in the upcoming age, after they are resurrected. God wills for this to happen and will carry it out. See Romans 14:1-4, 15:21; 1 Corinthians 4:5; and Ephesians 2:1-0.

-1 Timothy 2:3-6-“This is good, and pleases God our Savior, who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth. For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time.” Here, it’s important to note that the word translated to “will” (God “will have all men to be saved”) is the Greek word thelo. The Complete Word Study Dictionary New Testament defines thelo as “To will as the equivalent of to purpose, to be decided upon, seeing one’s desire to execution…Thelo indicates not only willing something, but also pressing it into action.” In other words, God not only wants to save all men, but also fully intends to do it. See John 1:7-9; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 28; Colossians 1:19-20; Titus 2:11; 1 John 2:2, 4:14; Revelation 15:4; Ephesians 1:7-10; Acts 3:21, 25-26; Luke 2:10, 3:6, 9:56, 15:4; Joel 2:28; Daniel 9:24; Isaiah 25:6-8, 45:22, 52:10, and 53:5-6.

-Exodus 21:33-34-“If anyone uncovers a pit or digs one and fails to cover it and an ox or donkey falls into it, the one who opened the pit must pay the owner for the loss and take the dead animal in exchange.” This law promotes personal accountability and extends to the fact that God owns us, and is therefore liable for us. In Genesis, He placed the Tree of Knowledge in the Garden of Eden and was fully aware that Adam and Eve would eat from it. This must have been part of His plan, since nothing catches God by surprise and all is under His control. Ergo, it infers that God was responsible for man’s fall and will redeem us.

-Psalms 66:3-4-“Through the greatness of Your power, Your enemies shall submit themselves to You. All the earth shall worship You and sing praises to You.” When everyone is resurrected and the world is renewed, all will eventually turn to God. It doesn’t sound like they’ll be brutally forced to submit, but that they’ll see the full truth of God. Once God’s goodness and truth is fully revealed, no one will want to resist Him. See Philippians 2:9-11; Romans 8:21; and Ephesians 1:7-10.

-2 Corinthians 5:18-19-“All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: that God was reconciling the world to Himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And He has committed to us the message of reconciliation.” The world includes everything and everyone in it. Also, consider Ephesians 4:6: “One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.” If everything is a part of God, it always will be, because He is infinite. If a part of God broke off and was no longer a part of Him, He would cease to be infinite. Losing a person would entail losing a part of Himself. See Colossians 1:16-18 and 2 Timothy 2:13.

-1 Corinthians 4:6-“Now, brothers and sisters, I have applied these things to myself and Apollos for your benefit, so that you may learn from us the meaning of the saying, ‘Do not go beyond what is written.’ Then you will not be puffed up in being a follower of one of us over against the other.” When the early Christians were warned not to go beyond what was written, they were likely being advised not to trust some of the popular Pagan and Jewish lore which featured dramatic tales of demons and the underworld. Such lore had begun to circulate during this time. A popular interpretation of this passage says we shouldn’t look outside the Bible for answers, but the prophets were not saying this. They didn’t purport to know everything. This is expressed in 1 Corinthians 13:9-12.

-1 Timothy 1:20-“Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme.” In this letter, Peter uses Satan as a symbolic figure to convey that he allowed the men to face consequences so they would learn a lesson. See 1 Corinthians 5:4-5, 11:32; Hebrews 12:5-6; and Proverbs 3:11-12. (In 1 Corinthians 11:32, “the world” pertains to the world of sin.)

-Romans 5:15-21-“But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ! Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. For just as through the disobedience of one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous. The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

In this passage, “death” refers to physical death, or possibly unrighteousness. It says that all people receive life and justification through Jesus. Romans 5:15-16 also says “many” receive justification, which some perceive as evidence that God doesn’t save everyone. However, the same two verses also say that “many” are sinners. If taken literally, this would imply that some people do not sin. We know the Bible doesn’t teach this, though, because there are numerous verses saying that everyone sins. For this reason, we shouldn’t be hasty to assume that “many” means a limited number of people, inferring that only a limited number of people are sinners and only a limited number will be saved. The word translated into “many” is pollos, which can also mean “all”. When you look at the verse contextually, you see that it should have been translated into English as, “For just as through the disobedience of one man all were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man all will be made righteous.”

Conversely, in Romans 5:18, the word translated to “all” is pantas. In Greek, pantas is strictly defined as “all” or “everyone/everything”. There are no alternate definitions that would allow for limited atonement. It’s an all-inclusive term.

Verses I still have questions about:

This section contains verses I’m unclear about, but they seem to support the aforementioned arguments.

-1 Peter 4:6-“For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to human standards in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit.” When he says “those who are now dead,” I wonder whether he means physically or spiritually dead? If this verse refers to the physically dead, it refutes the common belief that we receive no “second chance” after we die.

-Isaiah 57:15-18-“I live in a high and holy place, but also with him who is contrite and lowly in spirit, to revive the spirit of the lowly and to revive the heart of the contrite. I will not accuse forever, nor will I always be angry, for then the spirit of man would grow faint before me—the breath of man that I have created. I was enraged by his sinful greed; I punished him, and hid My face in anger, yet he kept on in his sinful ways. I have seen his ways, but I will heal him, creating praise on the lips of the mourners in Israel.” I have questions about this passage. In 57:17, was God implying that He punished man in hopes that he would mend his ways, but the outcome didn’t pan out as hoped? If so, why did God do this if He already knew it wouldn’t work out? At any rate, the message is clear: The Lord reconciles us to Himself.

(Continued in Part 4)

The Divided Waters (Part 2)

Why I don’t believe in limited salvation or the existence of hell

-Some argue that hell exists because of God’s wrath and because the Bible says that God “hates” certain people. In arguing from this angle, one forgets that the ancient Israelites were known to speak and write in hyperbole (obvious and intentional exaggeration) in order to illustrate a point. They had no word in their language for “like” or “dislike,” so they used the terms “love” and “hate.” Romans 9:13 states, “As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.” God is said to have “hated” Esau because He disapproved of some of his actions and did not select him for the same purpose as his brother Jacob. However, God later redeemed Esau and reconciled him with Jacob. These don’t sound like hateful actions. In Luke 14:26, Jesus says, “If any man come to me and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” Jesus is not telling his disciples to despise their parents and siblings with blood-boiling hatred, nor is he ordering them to loathe their own lives. He’s simply telling them to prioritize God over people.

As for wrath, the Greek equivalent of the word is “orgee.” Orgee means anger. It’s interchangeable with the word “vengeance” and it means “to repay.” God does not repay with inordinate punishments, but doles out a consequence that is equal to the crime. The famous “eye for an eye” legal code was introduced in Exodus 21:24 in order to prevent punishments that were far too severe. It was not meant literally, but used as a means to ensure that the repercussion fit the crime. The Bible describes God’s discipline as carefully and fairly measured (Romans 2:6; Leviticus 24:18-20; Psalm 62:12). No sin would be proportional to never-ending punishment, since eternity is immeasurable.

There are some Biblical passages in which God becomes angry at various clans of people and says He will show them no mercy. Withholding mercy is not a permanent judgment, though. It means He will not relent from disciplining people until they have learned their lesson. Even striking them dead is not a final judgment. God causes the sinners to die physically, but also causes them to die to their sin (Romans 6:7, 7:9; 2 Corinthians 4:11). Their physical death is not final either, as they will be resurrected in the future.

In Matthew 12:31-32, Jesus says, “Every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not…either in this age or in the age to come.” Some cite this as evidence that God doesn’t always forgive. This verse does not mean they will never be forgiven, though. It’s reasonable to speculate that their redemption will take place at a later time, or that they must face an appropriate penalty before being absolved. “In the age to come” is not synonymous with “forever.” Plenty of people also presume that Matthew 7:21 and Luke 13:23-28 refer to some being eternally separated from the kingdom of heaven, but neither of these passages indicate permanent estrangement from God. There may be temporary separation, but the people discussed in those passages will receive another chance. In Hebrews 3:16-19, the concept of “never entering God’s rest” is commonly read to mean that the Israelites who disobeyed God were forever barred from heaven, but it actually means they were not able to enter the  Promised Land on earth.

-In early Scriptural manuscripts written in Hebrew and Greek, people are not said to be eternally punished. In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word translated to “forever/everlasting/eternal” is “olam.” Olam describes an undetermined amount of time, not necessarily eternity. It also meant “of God,” “age-abiding,” or “of the age to come.” In the New Testament, the word translated to “eternity” or “forever” is aion. “Aion” is the Greek version of “olam.” Some assert that aion and olam mean eternal because the words are used to describe God. However, they are also ascribed to the amount of time Jonah spent inside the big fish. He was in the fish’s stomach for three days.

The word “aion” is translated to “time” in 1 Corinthians 2:7: “No, we declare God’s wisdom, a mystery that has been hidden and that God destined for our glory before time began.” Obviously in this case, aion does not mean eternity. “Before eternity began” would make no sense, because eternity has no beginning. In the same way, eternity doesn’t make sense in the context of “eternal” life, because both our physical lives and afterlives have a beginning. The original phrase was “aionious” life. In this context, it meant “of the age to come.” This related to the age following the Second Coming of Christ, when the world will be rebuilt and reconciled with God.

The word “aion” is translated to “for ages past” in Ephesians 3:8-9: “…and to make plain to everyone the administration of this mystery, which for ages past was kept hidden in God, who created all things.” Obviously “aion” does not mean forever in this verse. An eternal secret would never be revealed, yet it is being revealed in this passage.

Even if the original Scriptures had spoken of eternity, it could be viewed as hyperbole. Regardless, the early manuscripts don’t speak in terms of eternity unless the verses pertain to God’s nature.

-Words relating to fire and torture are also vastly misunderstood. In both the Old and New Testament, fire is a metaphor for correction. It is used to refine a person, not to senselessly torment them. Malachi 3:2 describes God as “like a refiner’s fire.” It logically follows that the Lake of Fire is a refining fire as well. According to Mark 9:49, “Everyone will be salted [refined/corrected] with fire.” If the description of fire in this verse were to be read literally and associated with hell, it would mean that everyone will be damned. Obviously, this isn’t the case.

As for torture, the original Greek word is kolazo. This was translated into English as “torture.” However, the New Testament Greek lexicon defines it differently: “1. To lop or prune, as trees and wings. 2. To curb, check, restrain. 3. To chastise, correct, punish. 3. To cause to be punished.” None of these definitions entail torture. Most refer to correction, which would be a pointless process if it were everlasting. The only definition which could possibly relate to torture would be “to punish.”

There is a distinction between punishment and torture. Torture is sadistic and cruel, which are not qualities of God. Punishment serves the purpose of correction, however, and rehabilitation is punishment’s ultimate goal. You discipline an unruly child with the intent to teach him, not to torture him. You don’t hate your child when he is disobedient. In the same way, God doesn’t hate us when we rebel. He seeks to reconcile us to Himself. Consider Romans 5:8: “But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.” Compare this statement with Romans 11:32: “God has bound everyone over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all.”

If God hated sinners, He wouldn’t have reached out to us. This doesn’t mean we face no repercussions for our sins. It simply means the repercussions are doled out in love. According to Hebrews 12:5-6, “And you have forgotten that word of encouragement that addresses you as sons: My son, do not make light of the Lord's discipline, and do not lose heart when he rebukes you, because the Lord disciplines those he loves, and he punishes everyone he accepts as His son.” This theme is repeated in Job 5:17; Psalm 94:12; Proverbs 3:11-12; 1 Timothy 1:20; Deuteronomy 8:5; and Revelation 3:19. Since everyone will face discipline in the upcoming age, we can conclude that God loves all of us enough to improve us.

According to world-renowned Greek scholar and translator William Barclay, “The Greek word for punishment here [Matthew 25:46] is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment.”

-A lot of people think that passages about “death,” “destruction,” or “perishing” relate to hell. They actually relate to three different things, none of which include eternal torture. First, the use of the word “death” is not always metaphorical. It sometimes refers to literal physical death. Secondly, it can allude to the figurative death of sin. When the Lake of Fire (in which the “fire” symbolizes refinement and correction) is called “the second death,” one can deduce that it refers to the death of sin which follows physical death. The Lake of Fire is discussed in Revelations, which describes the day in which all the dead will be resurrected and fully reformed. Our reformation is both physical and spiritual. According to the text, we will be honed, fixed, and ultimately healed. Thus, the second death is the death of our sinful nature. The “fire” itself is not eternal, but its results are everlasting. We're not destroyed when our sin is destroyed. Instead, we are renewed. A sinner is “destroyed” in the same sense that you can destroy an enemy by making him into a friend.

“Destruction” and “perishing” can also mean general harm or failure, such as in the context of “the path that leads to destruction” (Matthew 7:13) or “to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:16; Proverbs 18:24).

Romans 9-11 makes much more sense to me when read in this context. I interpret it to say that God elects certain people to have specific knowledge and to carry out certain tasks. God allows others to be immoral so that people will learn from them. However, “destruction” does not mean they will be unredeemed forever (See 2 Samuel 14:14 and Romans 11:25-32). In the same way that we can misread the concept of destruction, we also tend to use “saved” or “salvation” as catchall terms. Being saved could mean being restored or being guided toward a productive and healthy path. It can also refer to the preservation of one’s physical life. In light of the other definitions, one can see that it does not refer to being spared from eternal torture.

-The parable about Lazarus and the rich man does not read like a literal description of heaven and hell. It appears to be a metaphor that contrasts Israelites with Gentiles (non-Jews), in which Jesus advised his countrymen to show compassion for Gentiles instead of lording their spiritual blessings over them.

The rich man who is clothed in purple and fine linen represents a Pharisee of Jesus’ day. According to The Eerdman’s Bible Dictionary, “The wearing of purple was associated particularly with royalty . . .” (“Purple,” p. 863). The New Bible Dictionary says, “The use of linen in OT times was prescribed for priests (Ex. 28:39). The coat, turban and girdle must be of fine linen.” (“Linen,” p. 702). This indicates that the man clad in purple and expensive linen symbolized priesthood and royalty. In Exodus 19:6, God says of the Israelites, “And ye shall be to me a royal priesthood and a holy nation: these words shalt thou speak to the children of Israel.” The Pharisees loved money and prestige, just like the rich man in this parable. Pharisees were present while Jesus told the story, so he had to be mindful not to spell it out explicitly. However, they realized he was alluding to them and were outraged.

The poor man, Lazarus, represents a Gentile in the way he waits outside of the rich man’s gate and begs for crumbs of food (which symbolize spiritual blessings). This relates to Gentiles because they were said to have been left outside the gate of Judah in Ephesians 2:12. They wanted to be blessed by the Israelites, but were snubbed due to Judah’s holier-than-thou attitude. Jesus strongly deterred people from spiritual elitism and urged the Jews not to shun the Gentiles. He encouraged people to reach out to all who were needy, sinful, broken, “unclean,” or depraved. He preached equality and unity.

In the parable, Lazarus and the rich man’s death signified a shift in their spiritual positions. Lazarus is taken to “the bosom of Abraham,” meaning he is in favor with God. The rich man, however, is in “hell” (which simply meant “concealed” or “covered.”) He calls out to Abraham, meaning that he assumes his ancestor will redeem him because all families are blessed through Abraham. The rich man believes that he retains righteousness through his ancestry, but does not seek God. When he is enveloped in flames (symbolizing deep emotional anguish), he asks Lazarus to cool his tongue with a drink of water. Now, this is not a literal fire. Everyone knows that a sip of water would do nothing to alleviate the agony of being fully immersed in flames. In Luke 16:26, Lazarus tells the rich man, “And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.” The great gulf is the rich man’s self-righteousness and lack of faith. If he humbles himself and seeks God, he can overcome his predicament.

Another factor conveys that this parable is not about hell: The rich man represents a Pharisee, but Romans 11:25-26 says that “all of Israel will be saved.” This is mentioned repeatedly throughout the Old Testament. Therefore, even the Pharisees are not condemned to an afterlife of endless torment.

Other points to consider

-The belief in hell generally incites people to obey God more out of fear than out of love.

-If you can’t be saved through your own actions, why would you be damned by them either?

-If the wages of sin is death (in the sense of perdition, rather than simply physical death), wouldn’t Jesus have had to spend eternity in hell in order to pay the full price of our sins?

-How could Jesus be more powerful than Adam if Adam was able to condemn everybody, but Jesus was unable to save all of us?

-Wouldn’t the existence of hell entail that Jesus had failed in his mission to save all of mankind? See John 3:17, 12:32, 12:47; 1 Timothy 2:4, 2:6, 4:10; Colossians 1:19-20; Titus 2:11; Ephesians 1:7-10; 1 Corinthians 15:28; Luke 3:6; Joel 2:28; and Isaiah 45:22-25.

-If we’re supposed to love our “enemies,” would God do any less? Jesus tells us to share our love regardless of reciprocation; not to merely love those who love us. Since this is the case, wouldn’t God be sinning if He only loved those who love Him?

-“The path is narrow” (Matthew 7:13) sounds like it alludes to the fact that there are limited ways to be righteous, not limited ways to be admitted to heaven. When Jesus says that many try to find the path but only a few discover it, he may be using “life” as a metaphor for righteousness.

-If we are judged immediately after death (which the Bible does not say), why would we need to be assessed again at the Resurrection? If God’s punishments are “completed” in the days of the Second Coming (Revelation 15:1), why would they continue in hell? An eternal punishment is never completed.

-If God wills that all people be saved, why would He be incapable of carrying out His own will? This would mean He’s not all-powerful. How would Jesus have won if so many souls ended up in eternal torment? As Gerry Beauchemin wrote in Hope Beyond Hell, “God, as Creator, is owner of all things (Ps. 2:8; Ez. 18:4; Col. 1:16; He. 1:2), and that includes you and I. He has never relinquished that title. Only He has absolute ‘free’ will over His property. Should we be forever lost, He would be the loser.”

-The very word “hell” is derived from “Hele,” the Norse goddess of the underworld. “Hel” was the name of their underworld, and it featured a vicious three-headed dog called Cerberus. Originally the word “hel” simply meant “hidden” or “underneath.” It appeared in the 1611 KJV spelled as “hel.” This type of underworld was introduced to Christian doctrine when the church was trying to convert as many Pagans as possible. They wanted to transition them into Catholicism by allowing them to preserve certain Pagan traditions. In the process, the Catholic Church incorporated some Pagan beliefs into their own teachings.

-Hell was never mentioned in the Torah. If Jesus were first introducing the concept of hell in the NT, he wouldn’t have spoken of it so casually. It wouldn’t have sounded like everyone already knew what he was referring to. He speaks of Gehenna, which was translated into “hell” a number of times. Gehenna, however, was a garbage dump just outside of Jerusalem. This was where worms feasted, garbage burned, and wild animals tore at the trash (hence the description of worms chewing and the sound of animals’ “gnashing of teeth.”) We can assess that Jesus was using Gehenna as a metaphor for the disaster we incur when we refuse to do what’s right. In Matthew 5:26, Jesus says, “Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there [Gehenna] until you have paid up the last cent.” The word “until” reveals that time spent in the metaphorical Gehenna is of a finite nature.

-In the accounts of Near-Death Experiences in which people report a descent into “hell,” I notice quite a few inconsistencies. Many accounts contradict one another, and they vary depending on the person’s religious beliefs. (For example, one Pentecostal woman believes she was sent to hell for wearing makeup.) NDEs featuring heaven, however, are remarkably consistent with one another, regardless of the person’s frame of reference. Some people genuinely believe they’ve been to hell, but sincere belief doesn’t prove it happened. Others may say they went to hell because they enjoy the attention, or because they want to “scare people straight” and decide that lying is acceptable as long as it gathers more converts.

-The Bible doesn’t say you will be damned for not believing in hell, nor does it say you must believe in biblical inerrancy to be saved. Salvation is by grace, not by “correct” knowledge. The belief in salvation by appropriate knowledge has a distinctively Gnostic flavor. (For those of you who are unfamiliar with Gnosticism, it was a religious movement which branched off of Christianity before the Bible was compiled. Gnostics believed in multiple gods and taught that Jesus was fully divine instead of a combination of divine and human. They also believed that one could only be a legitimate Christian if privy to “secret” knowledge. They thought that God selected specific people to endow with this knowledge, and those entrusted with it were considered the spiritual elite. Gnosticism was declared heretical by the Catholic Church, and most Christians consider it so.)

-Jesus said those who aren’t for him are against him, but he also said those who aren’t against him are for him (Mark 9:40). This can be taken to mean that as long as you don’t count him as an enemy, you’re a friend. You can have religious beliefs outside of Christianity without being “against” Jesus. As long as you love your neighbor and do what’s right, you’re on God’s side (1 John 2:29; Romans 13:8-10, 14:15-18). In Matthew 12:30, Jesus was probably referring more to his teachings than to his literal self. If you live by the principles he espouses, how could you be his enemy? The fact that one cannot enter heaven without Jesus doesn’t mean that Christianity is a prerequisite for salvation. It means Jesus is the one who lets you in. C.S. Lewis expressed this view in Mere Christianity: “Is it not frightfully unfair that this new life should be confined to people who have heard of Christ and been able to believe in Him? But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people are. We do know that no man can be saved except through Christ; we do not know that only those who know Him can be saved by Him.”

(Continued in Part 3)

The Divided Waters (Part 1)

            Lately I have observed a great deal of discussion among Christians concerning who is “true” in the faith and who is not. It stems from a desire to sift the negative from the positive and discern one from the other. This is a noble goal, but it has the potential to become divisive if taken too far.

The topic usually surfaces when someone is offended by the way a Christian has behaved, and other believers remind the person that anyone who acts in such a way is not a “true” Christian and thus doesn’t represent Christianity. The basis of this argument is that one bad apple shouldn’t spoil the whole bunch. (This is an appropriate analogy, considering the Biblical context. We ought not to let one bad fruit poison the whole tree, or allow it to lead us into the temptation of retaliation.) That’s fair enough, and I agree with the claim. However, further classification of who is a “true” Christian often proceeds to splinter a group rather than unify it.

What classifies someone as authentic in their faith? Some would say a person is genuinely Christian only if they believe all the “right” things and hold to all the “correct” doctrines. Some say there is room for disagreement in nonessentials of the faith, but the definition of essentials is highly subjective. Some assert that belief in the trinity is an essential, while others disagree. Some state that it’s imperative to believe in justification through faith alone, while others say you can be saved if you believe in salvation through works as well as faith. Some insist that the doctrine of biblical inerrancy is an essential, and others deny that it is.

If doctrine alone doesn’t determine who is a “real” Christian, what about behavior? It’s perfectly possible to believe all the traditional teachings without acting on them. It’s possible to view the Bible from a completely literal fundamentalist perspective while maintaining a hateful attitude. I’ve seen it countless times. Now, it’s easy to see why such hostile believers are doing much more harm than good for the Christian movement. Some may deny that such people are “real” Christians, but I disagree. They all worship Jesus as Lord. They all strive to live like him. However, they’ve come to very drastic and unhealthy conclusions about what it means to follow his example. They don’t represent all fundamentalist Christians by any means. I am fortunate to know fundamentalists who are gracious, pleasant, and receptive to open discussion. Nonetheless, the negative people show that fundamentalist Christianity is not guaranteed to provide spiritual enlightenment or to improve one’s character. It isn’t guaranteed not to help, but it isn’t guaranteed to help, either.

            Others will probably say that one’s religious standpoint isn’t to blame. I understand that people can grossly misinterpret Scripture and use it to justify atrocities, but after a while, I start associating beliefs with behavior and see that it forms a pattern. Who orchestrated the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the “witch” burnings, and the Planned Parenthood bombings? Who beat and murdered gay people in an attempt to make them into examples? Who shows support for such activities? Pacifistic Christians are not to blame. These were the actions of Christians who believed their Scriptures to be completely inerrant, who insisted that the world had no place for deviating beliefs, and who proclaimed that anyone of a separate faith deserved to be eternally tortured in a fiery pit of doom.

            So much of this is driven by the belief in hell. Hell, used as a terror-instilling personal threat. Hell, viewed as an instrument of righteous vengeance to be inflicted upon one’s enemies. This is why I think that hell is the single most toxic doctrine to ever taint the Christian faith.

There are numerous reasons why I trust that we can be redeemed after death regardless of the beliefs we hold during life, why I’m certain that God will eventually save the whole of humanity, and why I disbelieve the existence of hell altogether. I detailed some of them in one of my past essays, “Faith and Reason: A Crucial Balance (Part 2).” I will now explain them further. Some are statements and others are questions, but they all lead up to my conclusions.

Let’s begin here. 

(Continued in Part 2)

Faith and Reason: A Crucial Balance (Part 2)

This is the second section of my essay. I delve into my current doubts about inerrancy, and explain my reasoning. If this part is going to upset anyone, you may want to skip over it. Just a disclaimer.


*    *    *

           From what I’ve observed, blind faith seems to be governed by circular logic. Many Christians (and people of other religions, for that matter) can offer no reason for their beliefs other than internal reasoning. I think we need to provide reasons outside of “the Bible says so, and I trust the Bible because it says it’s true, and it says it’s true because it is, and it is because it says it is.” I see the value in trusting something we haven’t physically seen or heard, provided we have other reasons to trust it. I don’t see the logic in a never-ending verbal spiral that doesn’t venture outside of itself. Some people say that the mark of “true” faith is continuing to believe something despite evidence to the contrary. This negates the critical thinking skills God gave us. If that line of reasoning were valid, we would be obliged to believe people who are clearly delusional or dishonest. The fact that someone preaches Biblical doctrine doesn’t always mean their reasoning is sound. A schizophrenic Christian might genuinely believe that God ordered him to bomb Las Vegas because of the tourists’ decadence and greed. His reasoning would be Biblically accurate, but that doesn’t mean we should believe God spoke to him.
            There are many intelligent fundamentalist Christians who don’t base their faith on circular reasoning, but I do notice that circular reasoning is more prevalent in fundamentalist thought. Over the past few years, I’ve discovered something intriguing: the most embittered atheists are usually ex-fundamentalist Christians. I wondered why this is so often the case, and realized that Christianity based entirely on the belief in Biblical inerrancy is the most easily fractured. For numerous people, this type of faith is a house of cards. As soon as they find one religious doubt that they can’t reconcile, the very foundation crumbles. It’s perfectly possible for a smart person to hold fundamentalist beliefs. It requires some mental gymnastics, and mental gymnastics are pretty useful for keeping your brain in shape. Unfortunately, they don’t allow for the same flexibility as real gymnastics. I view fundamentalism as a workout that only exercises one muscle. That muscle may become inordinately strong, but the rest of the body is neglected and falls out of shape.
           It’s possible to doubt absolute Biblical inerrancy without renouncing the faith. Personally, I have reservations about Biblical inerrancy. I’d like to share my reasons. Hopefully those of you who are still reading will bear with me and not get offended. This isn’t intended to upset anyone or to undermine Christianity, but to explain why my faith can survive in spite of these doubts.
            I’ve read the whole Bible by now, and have come across some passages that seem inconsistent with one another. It’s possible that my understanding is flawed. If you think these verses are inerrant, you’re welcome to clarify them.
            These are the passages I can’t seem to reconcile:

-God is incapable of lying and always tells the truth/God sometimes lies and doesn’t always fulfill His promises: 1 Kings 22:19-23; Ezekiel 20:25; 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12; 1 Samuel 9:15-16, 31:4-7; 1 John 2:21 (Jesus and God are the truth, so no lie comes from them), Hebrews 11:13; Numbers 14:30

-God never changes His mind/God sometimes changes His mind: 1 Samuel 15:29; Exodus 32:10-14; 2 Samuel 24:15-16; Isaiah 38:1-6; Jeremiah 18:7-10, 26:3, 19, 36:3 (It seems like it would contradict God's nature for Him to change His mind, as that would imply He was mistaken the first time. An all-knowing God would have no reason to alter His plans because He'd already know everything that was going to happen. Some may interpret these passages as conditional, especially the ones where God says "If X happens, I'll do Y." A lot of these examples are not conditional, though--God explicitly states He is going to do something, and then does something else. Even when God is speaking conditionally, this conflicts with His omniscience. When one knows the future outcome of something, one doesn't use the word "if.")

-God knows and sees everything/God is unaware of some things: Psalm 139:2-6; Isaiah 40:13-14, 63:5; Genesis 18:20-21; 1 Kings 22:19-23 (God asked for advice); Jeremiah 1:11-12, 2:30 (God can do things in vain?), 3:7, 3:19

-Children are/are not punished for their parents’ sins: Ezekiel 18:19-20; Isaiah 14:21, 65:6-7; Deuteronomy 24:16; Exodus 20:5, 34:7; 2 Chronicles 25:4

-Saul knew/did not know David before he was king: 1 Samuel 16:19-23, 17:55-58

-Michal (the daughter of Saul) had children/was childless all her life: 2 Samuel 6:23, 21:8

-There never would be anyone wiser than Solomon/Jesus was wiser than Solomon: 1 Kings 3:12; Matthew 12:42; Luke 11:31

-King David's only sin was adultery/King David sinned not only by committing adultery, but also by taking the census: 1 Kings 15:5; 1 Chronicles 21:1-4. (David also gloated about defeating his enemies, and asked God to pour out His wrath on them: Psalm 3:7, 52:6-7, 58:10, 69:20-28, 109:10-15, 137:8-9, 140:10. Being vengeful is listed as a sin many times in the Bible. Even though David sometimes asked God to avenge him instead of carrying out his own retaliation, he still had a vengeful attitude. As far as gloating goes, Proverbs 24:17-18 tells us not to gloat over an adversary's defeat. Not only did David commit all those transgressions, but he also calls himself blameless in Psalm 18:20-24. Scripture repeatedly states that everyone sins, and that claiming to be blameless is a sin in itself. Being power-hungry is a sin as well. David expresses a great yearning for power and exaltation in Psalm 18:37-50 and 27:6. He thanks God for allowing him to defeat his foes, but his gratitude seems to be grounded in self interest. He's thankful to God because of his own gain.)

-No one ever went to Heaven before Jesus did/Elijah and Enoch went to Heaven before Jesus was born: 2 Kings 2:11; Hebrews 11:5; John 3:13

-Jesus was the first to ever rise from the dead/Others were resurrected before him: 2 Kings 4:32-37; Acts 26:23. (We also need to remember that Jesus resurrected Lazarus and the dead girl before being resurrected Himself).

-The earth will be destroyed/The earth will never be destroyed: Psalm 78:69; Ecclesiastes 1:4; Luke 21:33

-All people will be saved eventually/Some people will not be saved: 2 Peter 3:9; Isaiah 26:10 (Grace is shown to the wicked?), 45:22, 52:10; 1 Timothy 2:3-4, 4:10 (“All men, especially those who believe”); John 12:32; John 3:3; Mark 16:16

-People can choose God/God chooses us: John 5:39-40; 2 John 1:8; Deuteronomy 30:19-20; Joshua 24:15; Colossians 1:22-23; Galatians 5:1, Romans 9:11-26

-No one who is saved will depart from the faith/Some will fall away from it: 1 Timothy 4:1; Isaiah 57:1; Galatians 5:4; Hebrews 6:4-6; 2 Peter 2:20-21; John 10:28; 2 John 1:8; Romans 8:38-39; James 5:19-20; Colossians 1:22-23

-God’s anger is short-lived/God’s anger is everlasting: Psalm 30:5; Jeremiah 3:12, 7:20, 17:4; Micah 7:18

-Jesus came to bring dissension/Jesus didn’t come to condemn people: Matthew 10:34; John 3:17

-God’s work is not flawed and His laws are perfect/Some of God’s laws were flawed and needed revision: Psalm 19:7, 111:6-8, 119:160; Isaiah 40:8; Hebrews 8:7-9, (Note the difference between two of the possible translations in Hebrews 8:8. One translation reads that God found flaw in His people and changed the law accordingly, while the other translation reads that God found flaw in His own law. These are two vastly different statements); Hebrews 7:18-19

-The saved do not sin/Everyone sins, including the saved: 1 John 1:8, 2:10, 3:6-10, 5:18; Romans 3:23; 1 Kings 8:46; 2 Chronicles 6:36

-Jesus said that Scripture cannot change and God’s laws stand forever, yet the laws were altered with the new covenant: Hebrews 8:13; Colossians 2:14; Luke 16:17; Galatians 3:10, 24-25

-Proverbs 3:12 says that the Lord disciplines those He loves. Most of the people who receive His wrath don't seem to be loved by Him, though.

-Jesus was sinless and perfect because He was God in human form. Why does Hebrews 7:28 say He was “made” perfect? Wasn’t He already perfect?

-Isaiah 54:9-10 states that God vowed to never be angry with Israel again, but subsequent passages show He was angry with Israel after that.

-Isaiah 60:18 says that God promised Israel would never be attacked again, but they were attacked in later passages.

-Why would God write a name in the Book of Life in order to blot it out? Doesn’t the act of blotting something out imply correcting an error? God doesn’t err.

-The sun moves, implying it revolves around the earth? Psalm 104:19, 22; Ecclesiastes 1:5; Joshua 10:13

-We’re to love God and fear Him, but there is no fear in love. 1 John 4:18

-Love keeps no records of wrongs and God is love, but God will announce all our sins on Judgment Day (even though the Bible says He’ll erase our sins from His memory if we repent of them).

-In 1 Corinthians 7, Paul says that he believes widows will be happier if they don't remarry. (He specifies that this is his own opinion.) If this is the case, why do so many widows remarry instead of opting to remain single? Paul also says he wishes that all men could be celibate, and that doesn't sound like an inerrant statement. It's obviously counter-productive to the human race's survival--or "counter-reproductive," if you will.

-Insects have four legs? Leviticus 11:23

-The story of Noah's Ark states that the only living beings who survived the flood were the ones on the ark. Nephilim were not on board, so it would logically follow that they died off. However, they are featured later on in the Bible.

-God killed Onan because He told him to continue his bloodline, but he refused to comply. If God was so insistent that the family line continue, was it self-defeating for Him to kill Onan (thus ending the bloodline anyway)? Why did God order Onan to do something He knew he wouldn’t obey? Why does God test us when He already knows the outcome?

-Why does God design every aspect of every fetus when He knows some won’t be carried to term (due to abortion, miscarriage, etc)?

-In Mark 16:9-20, Jesus says that believers will literally be able to handle venomous snakes and drink poison without coming to any harm. Throughout history, a lot of believers have attempted these actions and died. (Bibegateway.com contains a footnote adding that earlier versions of the Bible don't contain this verse. It makes me wonder how much of our current Bible's content was originally there, and how much was added over time.)

-Romans 9 speculates that God might create most people simply to destroy them, in order to demonstrate grace to the elect. The passage surmises that God may do this to show the elect what grace means by providing a basis of comparison. The elect couldn’t fully comprehend the comparison, though, because they wouldn’t experience both. Seeing something doesn’t produce the same understanding as experiencing it. We wouldn’t need a basis of comparison if God made everyone elect and equipped us with the knowledge of its significance. We also wouldn’t need to be rescued from Satan if God didn’t allow us to be swayed by him in the first place. People say God gives us the option so we can choose Him out of our own free will, but some passages claim we don’t have the free will to choose Him. They state that God chooses us, but not due to our personal merit. Paul tries to justify this view in Romans 9 by saying that it wouldn't be unfair of God to create people just to destroy them, since a potter can use his creations however he pleases and the clay doesn't complain. This is a false comparison, though. Clay doesn't complain about being destroyed because clay is not a sentient creation. It doesn't have a brain or feelings or opinions. It doesn't suffer.

-Why does God desire glory? Doesn’t God already have infinite glory, simply because of who He is? Why would God need or want affirmation from such inferior beings?

-In 2 Peter 2:20-21, why does Peter write that a believer who has fallen from the faith and lost his salvation is worse off than someone who never had it to begin with? If both people are damned, why is one worse off than the other?

-Romans 1:18-20 says that God’s attributes are clearly seen in His creation, so no one has a reason not to believe in Him. What about people who are unable to intellectually comprehend Him, such as the severely mentally handicapped? What about people from other cultures who have never heard of Jesus? They may perceive some sort of God, but they cannot perceive the Abrahamic God specifically. Among our Western culture, there are people who have heard of Jesus but honestly don’t perceive Him or feel His presence in the world. They don’t reject God out of rebelliousness, as if they know He exists but are willfully choosing to ignore Him. Since God knows everyone’s heart and motives, why would He punish such people?

-The criteria for what qualifies a book as Biblical cannon seems subjective to me. During various Papal discussions, the Catholic church decided which books would be included in the Bible. (This explains why the Catholic Bible includes certain books that other Bibles omit, such as the Septuagint and the book of Maccabees). These choices were based on whether the books were consistent with others, whether they emphasized messages the Pope wanted to spread, whether they had been read by the Apostles, and whether the texts were old enough. Consistency is challenging criteria, as some of the Biblical books seem to contain internal discrepancies. How do we know which books were fully divinely inspired when they were so subjectively chosen? One could argue that God gave the cardinals and Popes proper discernment, but this doesn’t explain why some versions of the Bible include books that others leave out. It doesn’t explain the discrepancies. Another factor to remember is that the 27 books of the New Testament were not declared official cannon until over 300 years after Jesus' death.

-A lot of Christians cite 2 Timothy 3:16 as proof of Biblical inerrancy, but this is a circular argument. The Bible doesn’t explicitly profess to be inerrant. (Conversely, I would also be using a circular argument if I denied the Bible is inerrant because it doesn’t call itself inerrant.) In Timothy’s letter, he may not have been actually saying that all the books of our current Bible are divinely inspired. Not all of the current books were considered official Scripture at that time. He may not have been calling his own letter Scripture or calling any other text Scripture. He may have been simply defining Scripture as a divinely inspired piece of writing. However, the fact that a text is inspired doesn’t necessitate that every word is dictated by God. Some of the prophets were recording visions they had seen, and likely described them by their own interpretations. (I'm sure they genuinely believed they weren't relying on their own interpretations or using their own words, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were all correct in that belief. A person can be fully convinced that something is true, but the conviction alone doesn't prove it. Two people of opposite viewpoints can be equally certain of what they believe, and both may think that God convicted them. It's also useful to remind ourselves that many who believe they're receiving divine messages are actually listening to their own subconscious minds). In 1 Corinthians 7:12 and 25, Paul specifically states that God did not order him to write the letter. He said he was writing from his own personal judgment. He believed his judgment to be trustworthy because he’d received the Holy Spirit, but those who received the Holy Spirit could still err in their understanding (take Kings Solomon and Saul, for example). I noticed that many of the books cite other books which are not included in the Bible (such as the recorded prophesies of Iddo, the books of annuals, and other letters written by Paul). I’d assume that if a book is divinely inspired, it would only quote other books of divine inspiration. Otherwise, how would their references be spiritually reliable? Yet if the other books mentioned were divinely inspired, why weren’t they also included? Wouldn’t God have preserved them?

         In addition to these topics, I have doubts about the issue of perdition. I admit that my objections are largely based on emotion, because I don’t like the idea. Heaven and souls and God are all happy concepts for me, but hell and Satan are much less pleasant to believe in. I know this isn’t a sound reason to reject something. I don’t like the idea of cancer, but I accept the fact that it exists. Still, there are some other reasons why I have difficulty believing in a permanent hell.
        First, let’s look at the original Scriptural words that have been translated to “hell.” There are five which I know of. The first is “abaddon,” which means “destruction.” This could mean destruction after death, but could also refer to general failure and misery in life. It may also simply mean “to perish,” which is to rot away. The second word is “Gehenna.” This was an actual location in the valley of Hinnam, where people burned their garbage in a pit that contained worms. That explains Jesus’ use of Gehenna as a metaphor for the place we end up if we are immoral; a place where the fire is never quenched and the worms devour everything. It could simply be a figurative term. The third translated word is “Hades.” The term “Hades” is Greek for “Sheol,” which the Greeks believed to be a general place of the afterlife reserved for the righteous and unrighteous alike. It was also used to mean “the grave,” “the pit,” or death in general. The fourth word is Sheol, and the fifth word is “infernus.” That means “being underneath,” in reference to being buried underground. “The pit” makes no inference to an afterlife; it only means death.
         In the book of Psalms, David actually seems to express the belief that there is no afterlife. See Psalm 6:5; 30:3, 9; 31:17; 49:10, 14-15; 63:9-10; 71:18; 88:4-5, 11-12; 90:5. The book of Ecclesiastes seems to express this outlook as well: 3:19-21; 6:4-6; 9:5-6. The New Testament obviously includes a different interpretation of the afterlife, though Ephesians 2:10 says that people can praise Jesus from “under the earth.” If that refers to people in hell praising Jesus, it doesn’t seem to make sense that they would still be damned after accepting Him. In Psalm 6:5, David says that no one can praise God from the grave.
         I question the consistency of such teachings about perdition. For example, if you never leave heaven or hell once you’re there, why does the Bible say we’ll be temporarily brought to earth (resurrected) on Judgment Day? You would have to leave in order to appear back here. Also, why would we be judged a second time if we’ve already been judged directly after death?
          I can’t help but feel that hell would be a disproportionate punishment for sins committed during a limited amount of time on earth. We’re dead for a lot longer than we’re alive, so why would we be eternally punished for things we did over a duration of roughly seven decades? One might also ask why we deserve to be eternally rewarded for a short period of righteous behavior and faith. I don’t think we “deserve” it, but I think we receive it because God is generous and merciful. He gives us better than what we merit.
          Most people who have NDE's report a blissful experience in which they visit heaven, but a small portion of NDEers have seen a hell-like environment. Howard Storm, an ex-atheist, gave a detailed account of his experience and was interviewed on the History Channel. When I saw it I noted that positive and happy NDE's seem to all share common elements, whereas unpleasant ones are all different. I don't know whether this implies that each person's hell is unique, or that a hell-like NDE is more of a psychological manifestation than a "real" experience. I have my doubts about hell, but if it does exist, I don't think it's permanent. When people (such as Howard Storm) have Near-Death Experiences in which they believe they've been to hell, they never seem to report seeing anyone they recognize. Some see other people, but never ones they know. In NDE's that feature heaven, almost everyone sees deceased people they've known. This could have two implications. It could mean that most people go to heaven, which would increase the chances of encountering familiar faces. It could also indicate that everyone in hell is a stranger to you, which could be one of the punishments. I'm more inclined to believe the former.
          A permanent hell doesn't really make sense to me. Some compare God's damnation of a soul to a father disciplining his child, but the purpose of discipline is to reform children and teach them lessons. Placing unruly souls in a hopeless eternal prison wouldn't correct them, and would provide them with no opportunity to repent. I don't see why it would be too late to repent of mistakes after we die, since life is temporary but death is everlasting. I could view it as a holding place where some people are sent to "do their time" and learn the error of their ways, but then are released to heaven once they've atoned for their sins. Interestingly, Howard Storm's NDE actually refutes the common view of an eternal and inescapable hell where we're severed from God completely. He was able to ask for Jesus' help while he was there, and Jesus freed him.
            I have further doubts about hell based on physical technicalities. How would hell be “the blackest darkness” (Jude 13) if it contains fire? Why would it feature flesh-eating worms if souls have no physical flesh?
            As for Satan, I think his existence would tip the scales a bit too far in evil’s favor. If we already have wicked inclinations and there’s an additional supernatural figure encouraging us to pursue them, how much of a chance do we have? I think the devil might be a symbolic character in the Bible, representing the internal temptations we wrestle with. He’s never described as a literal figure in the Torah, even though the Torah and the Old Testament are virtually identical. I can believe in demons and general malevolent forces, but I think they’d be far too powerful if organized by a leader. I consider them more chaotic.
            Overall, I feel that the concept of hell is far too unjust to be true. A lot of Christians dislike the idea of hell but are afraid to question its existence, lest that doubt becomes the thread which unravels the rest of their faith. They fear that if we break loose from hell, all hell will break loose. I don't think we have to be so inflexible. Discounting one doctrinal element doesn't require that we throw the rest out the window.
         Some people may disagree and caution me not to lean on my own understanding, but God gave us understanding for a purpose. No matter what, we always end up relying on it. When we come across complex Biblical passages, we use our judgment to decipher them. Christian books usually advise us to adapt our personal ethics to match Scripture. They advise us not to justify something that our intuition tells us is wrong, or something the Bible prohibits. What if your gut tells you that the Bible is mistaken about something? What if your intuition cries out in protest that a certain verse is deeply, utterly wrong? Scripture says that the law is written into our hearts. Why not let our God-given understanding guide us, since He engraves His standards into it? Some say we betray the laws we are innately aware of by justifying behaviors we know are wrong, but what if we sometimes do the same with Scripture? I suspect it’s possible that we intrinsically know certain laws are unjust (such as the code requiring a woman to marry her rapist, or requiring parents to stone a disobedient son). We don’t convince ourselves that some laws are wrong when we instinctively know they’re right. We do the opposite, which is what we’re commanded not to do.