(This was a book critique I wrote for my Systematic Theology II class at LBTS. Buy it here: Four Views on Hell
I. Introduction
Four Views on Hell presents, as the title suggests, four different theological viewpoints on the existence of hell. Each author discusses their unique conclusion as to the existence and definition of hell, followed by a refutation of that conclusion by the three remaining authors. Viewpoints included are literal, metaphoric, purgatorial, and conditional. While each author makes the claim that his viewpoint is the most consistent with the Scriptures, not all can hold to that. The defense of some positions relies more on human ideas of morals and ethics rather than what is taught in the Bible.
II. Brief Summary
The literal view of hell is presented by John F. Walvoord, former chancellor of Dallas Theological Seminary. Proponents of this view believe that hell is a real place where those who have rejected Christ are punished through eternity. They also believe that the descriptions given in the Bible literally describe hell, that it is a place filled with fire and smoke. Those souls that are cast into hell suffer eternal torment as the fire burns but does not consume them.
William V. Crockett, professor of New Testament at Alliance Theological Seminary and general editor of this book, offers up the metaphorical view of hell. This view shares many of the same beliefs as the literal view, though with the added caveat that hell may not be exactly as described in the Scriptures. Hell is a real place and punishment is eternal, but hell may not be filled with fire and smoke. The punishment of souls may be through means other than burning and fire.
The purgatorial view is defended by Zachary J. Hayes, retired teacher of theology at the Catholic Theological Union. Hayes posits that those people who were “not quite ready for heaven” yet did not “seem to be evil ogres” are instead placed in an interim state, purgatory, until such time as our transgressions have be purified.[1] Those who complete their time in purgatory will then be restored to paradise, while others will choose to enter hell rather than accept the purification.
The final view, conditional, is presented by Clark H. Pinnock, Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College. Pinnock argues that those souls who have not accepted Christ will not be subjected to eternal torment, but will be snuffed out completely at the time of judgment.
At the end of each essay presenting a particular view, the remaining authors respond to that view, pointing out where they find that it fell short in explaining the existence of purpose of hell. Obviously, each writer sees several deficiencies in other views, though some agree on more points than they disagree on.
The purpose of this book is not to convince the reader of the correctness or fault of any particular view, but to leave it to the reader to research and decide. Walvoord makes a statement at the beginning of his discussion that summarizes the point of the book quite well: “For those who believe in the genuineness of biblical revelation and accept the inerrancy of Scripture, the problem is one of understanding what Scripture teaches.”[2]
III. Critical interaction with author’s work
When discussing the literal view, Walvoord points out that “(t)he problem is how to harmonize an eternal heaven with that of eternal punishment.”[3] The literal view declares that hell is a real place where the souls of the unrighteous will reside in eternal torment.
Walvoord relies solely on Scripture references and refrains from using personal opinions about morality or suffering throughout his work. He argues that if one trusts in the infallibility and inerrancy of Scripture, than the literal view is the most obvious position to take. Walvoord does make the concession that “Scripture sometimes uses a language of appearance, describing something as nearly as possible in terms that can be understood.”[4] This is the closest that he comes to moving from a literal view to a metaphorical view, and by this statement he appears to be willing to find common ground on this. However, he still maintains that the fire of hell is literal, and that any objections would not be based on Scripture, but on outside viewpoints.
In the rebuttals to the literal argument, Crockett seems to agree wholly with Walvoord’s argument, with the exception being literal fire. Hayes’ response to the literal position seems less a critique of Walvoord’s position and more a critique of any kind of literal interpretation of Scripture. Hayes seems to advocate a more reader-response type of criticism, where the meaning of the text is deduced by the person who reads it and the text has no meaning by itself. Pinnock writes with a tone that makes it seem as though Walvoord’s position is one held by those who don’t have the capacity for rational though. He expresses doubt that the position of literalism can be better constructed, making it not a “live option for thoughtful Christians today.”[5]
Crockett proposes the adoption of the metaphorical view of hell, that while eternal punishment exists and those who reject Christ will be separated from him for eternity, the nature of this separation is not necessarily fire and brimstone. He agrees with much of the literal view, but states that “(i)n its desire to be faithful to the Bible, it makes the Bible say too much.”[6]
A good portion of Crockett’s paper is dedicated to disproving annihilationism over proving the metaphorical view. This could be due to the fact that Walvoord did such a detailed job in his discussion of literalism, or it could be an attempt to prove the metaphorical view by discounting the conditional view. Crockett would have been better served in spending more time on the metaphorical view.
Walvoord responds to Crockett by saying that “arguments for a literal view of hell falls on deaf ears largely because those who hear do not want to hear.”[7] This seems to be a reduction of the opposing viewpoints merely because they don’t agree with him. Hayes questions how human language speaks of the eternal, but that seems to be irrelevant since it matters only what Scripture says of the eternal, the language is irrelevant. He also makes no references to Scripture to back up his opposition to the metaphorical position, nor does he really argue against the position at all. Pinnock seems to take offense that the metaphorical position does not have a concrete picture of what hell is like. He argues that Crockett is trying to “take the hell out of hell”[8] by not deducing what exactly hell is like. This seems to miss the point of the metaphorical position in that the words expressed in Scripture are simply placeholders for what hell is truly like.
The purgatorial position argued by Hayes seems to be flawed from the beginning. He states, “(i)f we are not quite ready for heaven at the time of death, neither do we seem to be evil ogres.”[9] This would appear to contradict Romans 3:23, which says, “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (NKJV). Hayes also suggests that some will “die without being adequately purified in this life”[10], seemingly stating that the work of Christ on the cross is not enough to cover the sins of the world, that another act must be performed to allow the soul to enter heaven.
Walvoord argues that Hayes’ defense of the purgatorial view relies on apocryphal writings and that Hayes’ writings also prove to be a refutation of his view.[11] Crockett brings forth the same point as mentioned above, that God’s grace through Christ has covered all sins and that without it we are all well short of heaven. He declares purgatory to be “a later invention of the church.”[12] Pinnock’s response is that Hayes’ paper is less about hell and more about purgatory, which is true. Purgatory and the further purification of sins is not the point of this book and it seems to be out of place here.
Pinnock begins his defense of conditional immortality by observing, “(t)o engage in any theological topic, one joins an ongoing conversation”.[13] From this he seeks to change the traditional viewpoint of the immortality of the soul, whether it exists in heaven or in hell, to conditional immortality where those who join God in heaven are immortal, while those who reject Christ descend into limited suffering in hell and then are snuffed out of existence.
One defense of his view is made with Matthew 25:46, which says, “And these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into eternal life”(NKJV). Pinnock argues that everlasting punishment is a once and done idea, that the punishment is the destruction of the soul. This seems to be inconsistent with the idea of eternal life, since both words are the same in the original Greek.
In his rebuttal, Walvoord makes the observation that the moral desire to not believe that God will punish someone forever causes us to seek out something in Scripture which does not exist. He falls back on the argument that the Bible is the sole source of information and that human desire and emotion play no part in how the Bible should be interpreted. Crockett makes this same point in his rebuttal as well, stating that “Pinnock’s chapter is littered with emotionally charged arguments designed to sweep the reader away from historical, biblical moorings”.[14] Hayes approves of most of Pinnock’s writing, believing that we cannot fool ourselves into thinking that we can understand the full mystery of God.
IV. Conclusion
This book is a well-written, informative piece of literature. Even if you do not believe that the Bible supports a particular viewpoint, it is good for students of theology and Christians in general to broaden their minds to see the varying beliefs that exist among our shared faith. Four Views on Hell is not intended to be persuasive to a particular viewpoint but to present each different viewpoint so that the reader can decide what they believe.
While reading I felt a particular hostility towards the conditional and purgatorial viewpoints as I believe that hell is a real place where those souls who reject Christ will be cast into forever. However, this book pushed me to sharpen my understanding of why I believe this. While I tend to agree more with the metaphorical position, I think that the other authors offered great points in their writings. One cannot hold that because a particular theological construct is traditional that it is right. We must be able to see fresh insights in the Scripture, to be able to uncover new knowledge in our studies. Books such as this one can help to encourage that.
[1] William Crockett, ed., Four Views on Hell (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996), 96.
[2] Ibid., 12
[3] Ibid., 12
[4] Ibid., 28
[5] Ibid., 38
[6] Ibid., 54
[7] Ibid., 80
[8] Ibid., 87
[9] Ibid., 96
[10] Ibid., 96-97
[11] Ibid., 121
[12] Ibid., 126
[13] Ibid., 138
[14] Ibid., 174
(Updated 2010-05-06: Fixed some grammatical mistakes and removed a paragraph that shouldn’t have been in the final paper.)
Add me to your reader!