I was actually framing the (possible) argument on the marks I mentioned from within an amillennial interpretation of Revelation. If that is the case, we are already in the millennium and the marks of Christ and the beast are “present” in everyone even right now.

But I’ll have to give your insights some thought… good stuff, Greg.

-Greg

You did focus in on the one you need to attack. For one thing it is in Revelation, which poses interesting exegetical problems in itself. For another, it is arguably the strongest text pointing toward “eternal punishing” rather than the others which could be interpreted on their own as either “eternal punishment” or “eternal punishing.” The question, then, from a traditionalist’s standpoint is the extent of those who are punished Revelation 14:9-11.

On that the interesting point is about ‘the mark of the beast’. As my (tentatively held) eschatology allows, that mark isn’t something that is confined to some end times future, but rather is alive and well in our present. The idea of a seal or ‘mark’ being written to or tagged to a person was an ancient way of saying that a person belonged to another. So, the ‘mark of the beast’ in Revelation means less “having a tattoo” and more “you belong to the Beast.” During what period is contingent upon your eschatology (end times or the age of the church).

In support of this general idea, the language of marking and writing on foreheads is not only used of those belonging to the Beast, but also of those belonging to Christ (Revelation 3:12, 7:3, 14:1, 22:3-4). That is, the seal (or mark) was a way of talking about those who belong to Christ.

So, the key question in interpreting the passage in question is about the application of marks/seals. Are they limited to some future end times or are we already in the end times? Are they limited to a subset of people or will all people bear one of the marks?

I have no desire to damn more people – far from it! But the idea I presented above is at least plausible on its face… although I need to dig into it in a deeper fashion.

In the end, I agree that when we speak of heaven and hell of the damned and saved we are seeing “in a mirror dimly.” There are many mysteries we won’t resolve this side of the curtain.

Reed wrote…..

“You mentioned the story of Lazarus. I haven’t found many traditionalists hanging their hats on this as most scholars agree the setting is not hell, but hades. I am of this mindset, too, on this passage. The stronger texts from the traditional perspective seem to be Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:48, and Revelation 14:9-11.”

The supporting Scriptures you cite are not remarkable. Annihilation is “eternal punishment.” As for the one in Revelation, it appears those who worship the Beast are in deep trouble and perhaps will incur eternal suffering, same as Satan and his horde. I don’t see this to be the norm for the damned, whoever they are. Also, I agree that the belief of an eternal soul is an assumption. It’s astounding how many beliefs we hold dear are. Regardless, “we all see in a mirror dimly.”

-Greg

As I mentioned in our email conversation, I’m currently studying the debate within evangelical Christianity regarding the traditional view of hell and the conditional view, which you espouse. The majority position and the one held throughout Christian history for the most part, is the view that hell is eternal in nature; that is, that those who refuse to accept God’s grace choose to do so for eternity. The minority view (held by people like John Stott and Clark Pinnock) is the conditional view where as you state the persons rejecting friendship with God are either a) annihilated or b) waste away to nothing apart from God.

In commenting further I need to say that I believe that both sides of this argument can be held by those with a high view of Scripture (this is certainly true of Pinnock and Stott). On the other hand, it can also be the case that both sides can hold it in an uninformed manner, relying more on assumptions handed down from other cultures or our own than on Scripture. For example, some of the debate currently in the mix discusses the whole concept of whether or not our soul is inherently immortal. Those on the conditional side suggest that the idea of an immortal soul comes not from biblical sources but rather from Greek philosophy being read into certain verses in Scripture.

This is one of the reasons I am studying this in an ongoing manner. I want to do my best to review Scripture and follow its lead. Again, as I have often wondered, if the soul is not inherently immortal but is rather sustained on a moment by moment basis by God, the ground of our being, then the idea of an eternal punishing in hell is puzzling. If on the other hand, the soul is inherently immortal then this is less so.

But either way, given my perspective that we’ll see all God’s acts as righteous and worthy of praise at the end of days no matter what we discover about God’s management of the universe, heaven, hell, us, etc. (Revelation 15:1-4 / my message from 9/21), I’m not so worried about whether or not whatever Scripture says seems just to me. In the end, what seems just to me is simply the result of a self-centered (as in perspective) and very limited view of one human being. God knows best and is good and just.

So what is the next step? For me it is to go back to Scripture and study diligently, which I am doing. So far, as I said to you via email, I see both sides taking some relevant verses “metaphorically” while taking other verses “literally.” What puzzles me, and what I need to sort through, is their method for doing so. In other words, it seems that on the face of it Scripture has some evidence – even points – in both directions and we need to study this more.

All this being said, where am I at right now? When faced with situations like this I have found it wise to find my default position to be that which has been handed down (until the clear view of Scripture would change this). I have a tendency – in fact most of us do – toward ‘chronocentricity’ believing that we are more enlightened than those who’ve gone before us in the faith. This is almost certainly not the case and we can learn much from their beliefs. So, while I am actively studying, I am in the ‘traditional camp’ until otherwise convinced. And I am not convinced about the conditional argument.

You mentioned the story of Lazarus. I haven’t found many traditionalists hanging their hats on this as most scholars agree the setting is not hell, but hades. I am of this mindset, too, on this passage. The stronger texts from the traditional perspective seem to be Matthew 25:46, Mark 9:48, and Revelation 14:9-11.

The strongest scripture pointing to conditionalism seems to be “death and hades” being cast into the lake of fire in Revelation 20:14 but there are others, too, including 2 Thessalonians 1:9, 1 Corinthians 3:17; Philippians 3:19.

And the conversation continues…

I don’t think you’d hurt yourself or the church by addressing this straight on, reiterating the traditional view and then introducing the alternative, with Scriptural support for both. One critical reason why I don’t believe in eternal torment has to do with the Genesis passage when the God tosses Adam and Eve from the garden, not wanting them to partake of the tree of eternal life. Eternal torment is a form of eternal life, albeit not a nice one. In contrast, further reading reveals that eternal life is a gift, not a given.

Furthermore, aside from the Lazarus parable, there is little to no scriptural evidence that people suffer for eternity. Hell terminates their existence, whereas fallen angels (who are eternal beings) and Satan himself will be tormented for eternity.

Finally, does eternal torment fit the crime? We’re made in His image which includes a God-given value system and a sense of fairness. Who doesn’t cringe over the notion of eternal suffering for a breath (our lifetime) of unredeemed sin.
It’s no wonder seekers grapple with this concept when considering Christianity.

-Greg