This is written for a bible study I am leading. One goal of the bible study is to try to keep these no more than two pages. Thus, there is many things here not covered. Instead, I try to give the most basic underpinnings of the debate.
An orthodox view within Christianity is that hell is an everlasting eternal conscious experience of torment (hereafter, ECET). This view has recently come under fire since prima facie it appears against to go against the nature of a perfectly good being (God). There are a couple of pivotal questions to answer in this debate. One question is if ECET is the most plausible view given the biblical data. If the biblical data points to ECET, then the prima facie worry that God isn’t all good should not be too troublesome since this very well might be an area where we should expect not being able to know. However, if the view is not required by the biblical data, then it is much harder to justify believing in ECET, but an alternative account still would need to be offered. The most common alternative is Annihilationism. Annihilationism is the view that people go to hell but only for a finite time before they are completely destroyed.
I will focus on a few key bible verses used to support ECET, then explain why they fail to support ECET. This will not cover every piece of biblical data, but I think the reasoning here can be used for the other bible quotes one could use to defend ECET.
2 Thess 1:9 states, “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.” This would be one of the most basics pieces of biblical data used to support ECET. The punishment is everlasting; thus, hell must last forever. However, one should note that we already admitted that both views believe the punishment is everlasting, what is at stake is the nature of the punishment. This verse does not actually support the claim that everlasting punishment is a punishment of eternal consciousness.
A second Bible verse that could be used is Matt 13:42, “They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” Here the idea is that weeping and gnashing of teeth is a conscious experience. If this is a conscious experience and hell last forever, then hell is an eternal conscious torment.
The problem with this understanding is that there is no indication that the weeping and gnashing of teeth will happen forever. One can be eternally removed from the presence of God without the removal needing to be an eternal consciousness experience. Another way to think of this is that the verses on the weeping and gnashing of teeth state nothing about this experience being eternal, merely that this happens in hell. The annihilationist can agree that this happens, but it is only for a finite time.
The last and most compelling piece of biblical data is Rev 20:10, “[The devil and the beast] will be tormented day and night forever and ever.” If the enemies will be tormented day and night forever and ever in the lake of fire, then the same should be expected to happen to the enemies of God here on Earth.
There are two notes on this passage which need serious consideration. One is that revelation is very difficult to understand given that kind of literature it is and the second is that this passage mimics the language of Isaiah 34:9-10, which we know not to take literally. Given the difficulty in the literature and that there are other clearer passages of this kind which are not taken literally, then this gives sufficient reason to not take this passage literally.
Now, if all there is for the annihilationist case is a negative one. That is a case defending against biblical passages, there might be some worry that this position is on shaky ground. Sometimes all there is, in fact, shaky grounds for biblical positions and we need to do the best we can.
Most of the biblical examples given in favor of annihilationism, I think are also wanting. However, it is known that God’s anger is short while his mercy endures. It isn’t clear that hell must be a product of God’s anger though. This means that the biblical data is inconclusive. I think given the understanding of God’s nature as primarily merciful, then this is compelling enough to accept annihilationism.
estrangewanderings 
Given that God will remove all unrighteousness forever, and that this unrighteousness is that which dwells or has dwelt in man and his conscience; that this is what hell is, his confrontation with his conscience, and that Jesus bore this hell [on the cross] but also not forever: then the fire will go out eventually for lack of fuel, they will be ashes underfoot, their ‘earth’ (body) “and the works thereon” or in them, ‘therein’; will be burnt up. Conversely, “they themselves will be saved, but only as one escaping through the flames”.
LikeLike
This is interesting crossroman. Thanks for checking out the blog and leaving your thoughts!
It seems fitting that God would remove all unrighteousness forever, but for the defender of ECET I think some verse explicitly stating that would helped. Otherwise, they can make claims like he removed all unrighteousness from the Earth and Heavens.
I am also not sure where sin dwells. Whether this be consciousness or the soul. I am inclined to the latter myself and think consciousness is a bit different than the soul.
LikeLike
Thanks Tyler for your thanks! Christianity has so much complexity of terminology even though some of this is resolved by comparing the use of the same words or phrases in different places, but overall there has been a lot of complexity generated by the use of addressing so many things from a literalistic point of view instead of perhaps a consciousness stream? Hopefully that of the HS. Sin ultimately must dwell in the resultant person who either retains his corruption or has left it in Christ, and the record of who he is and what he has done is himself and his body, and his own consciousness of right and wrong as the Spirit eventually (if not now) forces the issue on Him to prove what he is made of by the burning away of what is not of eternal nature.
LikeLike
There are certainly a lot of complex terms. Hopefully, I kept those to a minimum, but I do think the distinctions can be helpful. Thanks for your thoughts again! Have a good new year.
LikeLike