Puritan Reformed Theological Seminary
Four Views on Hell
Joshua Lamb
417: Systematic Theology 7: Eschatology
April 5, 2016
Introduction
The subject of hell has long incited both fascination and terror. However, in recent decades, the traditional doctrine of everlasting punishment has started disappearing from pulpits in the West. In its place, many other “more palatable” viewpoints have arisen. Some believe that eventually all people will be saved. Some believe that hell is simply a furnace where the dead are burned up. And still others believe that hell only exists in our minds. Which of these viewpoints are accurate? This paper seeks to identify these viewpoints of annihilationist, traditionalist, universalist and metaphorical, and compare them.
The doctrine of hell is of critical importance in understanding the nature of God and the relationship between God and man. Every person born in human history with conscious awareness wonders “what awaits me after death?”. Perhaps the single most important practical outworking of one’s belief regarding hell is how it will affect their moral behavior in the present. Those that believe hell is real and everlasting will account for that in their lifestyle. Those that believe it is made up or that all will eventually reach heaven will also live accordingly. As man’s individual lifestyles go, so goes a city, a society, a nation. Some philosophers believed that it was for this reason that the doctrine of hell was ‘fabricated’. Cicero notes, “It was on this account that the ancients invented those infernal punishments of the dead, to keep the wicked under some awe in this life, who without them, would have no dread of death itself”1.
So the chief question regarding hell is whether or not it does indeed exist. And if so, in what form does it exist. Is it literal and real, or simply an imagination?
Metaphorical
We first turn to the metaphorical interpretation, which has been espoused by a large swath of men from various religious viewpoints. Many open deists, spiritists, animists, agnostics, and skinny jeans spiritualists subscribe to this notion. They believe that ‘immortal souls’ and ‘resurrected men’ are really just the imaginations of the Christian faith2. Even some modern Catholics hold to this viewpoint, as liberal Catholicism continues to drift away from the official catechism of the Roman Catholic church.
Many of those in the metaphorical school, instead believe that heaven and hell are synonymous with the future consequences of present decisions that we make here on earth3. That is to say, we all live in a heaven or a hell of our own making. Hell is when we, based on limiting beliefs, choose to live in a manner that imprisons us and limits our freedom in our own mind. Conversely, heaven is our experience when we decide to live in a way that is liberating and perhaps – happy. To the metaphorical mind, man has an autonomous free will and is volitionally capable of pursuing either freedom or bondage, based on his lifestyle. In John Shea’s words, “hell is the discomforting reminder that man freely collaborates with his destiny”4.
This viewpoint looks at the Christian, Jewish, and Islamic interpretations of the afterlife as being expressions of hope and fear, rather than literal realities5. The apocalyptic language in the Bible is usually interpreted as having historical fulfillment in events that have already come to pass. For instance, the descriptions of destruction in the New Testament are often described as taking place in the 70 A.D. destruction of Jerusalem6.
Critique: In theory, the metaphorical school is allowed to conceive whatever interpretation they want as a basis for belief. One could freely choose to believe Santa Clause is real. The problem comes when approaching the sacred text of Scripture and what it says about heaven and hell. New Testament passages such as Revelation 19:20 and 20:10-15 show that hell is referred to as a literal place and not as a concept. The Old Testament accords with this when it refers to שְׁאוֹל (sheol) as the place for the dead. It is variously referred to in the KJV as ‘grave’, ‘hell’ or ‘pit’, but the importance here is that all these references are to a location as well. If the underlying premise of the metaphorical school is that hell is not literal, then the Bible stands in complete contradiction to this. There are numerous other differences, such as the view of sin & judgment, God’s holiness, and man’s responsibility. However, this belief that hell is unreal is the starkest difference from the traditional viewpoint.
Universalist / Purgatorial
The universalist viewpoint is one that acknowledges the literal reality of hell, but believes that all men will one day escape that reality and go to heaven. This is typically argued from a standpoint of the love of God. This is a view that goes back even to the early church fathers, such as Origen (although it was a minority position and understood as heretical)7. Unlike the metaphorical school, the universalist view does attempt some engagement with Scripture, though this is usually diffused by also engaging on the same level with religious texts of Eastern and Mystic religions.
Universalists (among them the Unitarian church) believe that God’s most pronounced attribute is that God is loving. After all, “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love” (1 John 4:8). They believe philosophically that since God is the creator of all creation, including man, that God has a certain responsibility to ensure the care of man. That a loving God would send men to hell is unspeakable.
In fact, the relationship that God has with man is not one of moral judge but one of care, friendship, and provision. “Every human being, even villainous, is one to whom Jesus is Brother and God is the Father”8. According to this interpretation of Scripture, God would not do anything to hinder man from experiencing freedom and blessing, but it is our own choices and free will that hinder us. Simply put, hardened sinners are just too stubborn to receive God’s love.
The view of sin a universalist has is more of a lifestyle than a “checklist” of offenses9. When man is sinning, he is going against the path that God has for him. It is not to his everlasting peril, but to his temporal frustration. If he would just go the right way, he would experience more blessing from God. Those caught in a lifestyle of sin have not learned yet to cease fighting against God’s love and embrace it. Additionally, universalists believe that man is not fully responsible for sin because there are other factors which influence him and operate through him. This is a concept referred to as ‘moral luck’, in which circumstances come to bear on someone committing a wrong act10. An illustration of this would be two men who wake up in the morning and each one tries to rob a bank. However, one man’s car does not start and in the end he decides to stay home. Thus, only one man ends up committing the crime, while circumstances prevented the other. Man is ever only partially responsible for his actions, but cannot assume 100% of the blame.
This view of sin feeds into the universalist position that hell is “…a temporary form of God’s love and man’s disobedience. It will last just as long as man is disobedient”11. Hell may either be a physical place when the sinner is made to “cry uncle” and submit to God’s love, or simply a hell of our own making, until we likewise submit12. Thus, according to John Hick there is no eternal choice of heaven and hell. There is of necessity a time beyond death when our perfecting can continue13. This is the notion of a progressive afterlife or series of afterlives, in which we are increasingly made better as we experience God’s love and learn to embrace Him.
Universalists also believe that the strength of this position is that it empowers men to love others in a way God intended. If all men are eventually saved, it means that all men can be assured of salvation. The rationale is that someone fully assured of their salvation is able to go out into the world and act lovingly, freely, and creatively14.
Critique: Universalism indeed holds an appeal for people who desire that all men may come to the knowledge of salvation. There is a sense in which this is God’s heart as well (2 Peter 3:9). However, the universalist has a view of God and the relationship with God and man, that is untenable in relation to Scripture. Sinners are too stubborn to receive God’s love, but it is a situation that time will not change. They are fundamentally unable to love God, unless God’s grace comes and pierces through their hearts.
God is indeed loving, as the universalist claims, but that is not His single attribute, or even His most pronounced one. Above all, God is Holy (Revelation 4:8). The Westminster Shorter Catechism number four puts it succinctly that God is “a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in His being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.” To say that God is only love is to neglect the truth of these other attributes, and that sin is not an amoral wrongdoing, but in fact high-handed rebellion against His authority and majesty. Sinners are not just stubborn – they are wholly responsible for their own actions (Ezekiel 18:4). Even the concept of ‘moral luck’ does not excuse rebellion against a Holy God (Ezekiel 18:20).
The universalist may appeal to the relationship of Jesus as Father and Brother, but this applies to the elect only. People must have exclusively and actively put their faith in Christ for this adoption to apply to their own soul (John 20:31, Galatians 2:16, 1 Timothy 2:5). However, in so doing they may indeed have the assurance of faith that the universalist talks about. This is a real and anchored assurance because it is in the righteousness of Christ and the open declaration of God that all who trust in Him will be saved and not cast out (John 6:37).
Annihilationist / Conditional Immortality
Annihilationism is in many ways a step even closer to the traditional viewpoint of hell, with a few differences that take it in a different path. Although considered unorthodox, there have been some conservative scholars that fall within this camp, such as John Stott. The biggest point of difference between the two views is that annihilationists view sin as not meriting an eternal consequence, and they take references to hell to mean a once-for-all destruction of the soul.
Annihilationists typically view the Scripture with reverence and may affirm biblical inerrancy and infallibility, along with traditional scholars. It is in this position that the debate is finally on traditional Scriptural grounds vs the extra-biblical views discussed previously.
From an annihilationist perspective, the argument starts back in Genesis when God created man in the beginning. From the outset we see that God is eternal and all-powerful, while man is frail and has a beginning point. God is eternal, and man is created in time. God is the one who caused us to exist, and if God removes His light from us, then we cease to exist15. It would then follow that souls who are cast out of the presence of God will perish.
Because of this view of man, the doctrine of sin is that mortal man cannot merit everlasting punishment from God16. If man sins, his punishment can only last so long before he is extinguished and his iniquity is made complete. His debt to God is paid and he is killed. While sheol can mean ‘hell’, ‘pit’, or ‘grave’, it is argued that it was a mistake for this word to be translated ‘hell’ in the KJV17.
Rather, God’s judgment is viewed as a final act in which those who do not have faith in God are extinguished. When Peter uses the flood as an example of the end of the wicked, “perish” “die” and “be destroyed” is meant to convey life will cease (2 Pet 2:5,9; 3:3-7)18. This is why we are to fear the one who can destroy both body and soul in hell19. When it comes to passages that indicate the eternality of punishment, annihilationists say that it is not punishment on the individual sinner that is eternal, but rather that the fires of hell keep burning until all evil flesh is consumed. The oven won’t be turned off until the last sinner dies. This is why the worm is not quenched20.
Eternal destruction is equated with complete destruction. Thus the rising smoke from Sodom and Gomorrah and other examples, show that God’s judgment is final and decisive (Lam 4:6, Is 34:10, Rev 14:11, 19:3). Out of necessity this means that man is separated in his future condition. The righteous live on forever, while the wicked are extinguished. Psalm 1 is cited as an example of this bifurcation. The tree of the righteous is perennially refreshed and continues on, while the wicked waste away like stubble and are consumed21.
Critique: it is admirable that this debate takes place along Scriptural grounds, although the interpretation is flawed. Annihilationists are correct in showing the disparity between God and man. Man is not truly eternal as God is. However, God created man in His image and with a never-dying soul. Although sin is from a frail mortal man, it is against a Holy and eternal God. Thus, sin has more to do with how it affects God than man. A classic illustration of this is if a person went out one day and struck his father and later a police officer. The father might give discipline; the police man would arrest him and send him to jail. The difference in punishment is who the sin is against! Because man’s sin is against an eternal and Holy God, it deserves eternal punishment. Additionally, the bifurcation in the ‘lifespan’ of righteous vs the wicked is artificial. John Macarthur comments on Matthew 10:28 that if hell was not forever, the command to fear God and not man would not make any sense, as they would effectively have the same power22. Texts such as Matthew 25:33-46 show that the same terminology is used for the righteous and the wicked, but with vastly different destinations. The righteous will go to eternal punishment (αἰώνιον κόλασιν) while the righteous to eternal life (αἰώνιον ζωὴν) (Matt 33:46). If blessedness is truly forever for the righteous, then hell is forever for the unrighteous.
Literal Traditionalist
The traditionalist viewpoint holds that hell is a literal place of conscious, eternal torment, where wicked souls go, immediately upon death. At the second coming of Christ, these souls are reunited to their bodies and experience physical suffering. Theologians such as Augustine, Anselm, Calvin, and Edwards all espoused this view23. It is the view most predominant among conservative evangelical scholars all the way back to the church fathers.
In the traditional view, man was created in uprightness but fell due to the sin of Adam. As a result, all of mankind was plunged into sin and misery, which places all humanity in opposition to God and bound for eternal punishment. According to God’s promise in Genesis 3:15, some of the human race is placed under the “seed of the woman” and grafted into a different family tree. Thus, there is an opposition between the “seed of the woman” and the “seed of the serpent”, Zion and Babylon, the kingdom of light and the kingdom of darkness. All of humanity is divided into one of these camps.
As noted in the critique above, sin merits eternal punishment because it is against an eternal God. If someone is not redeemed, they do not possess the eternal righteousness of God and cannot enter His rest24. If God were to let sinners off, it would be inconsistent with His nature, for He cannot deny Himself (1 Tim 2:13). To allow evil would make Him an evil judge that justifies the ungodly, the very thing He condemns human judges to do25. For a judge to look away at injustice is for him to become tainted with evil. It would also be impossible for God to dismiss evil because the thoughts and intentions of men are plainly revealed to Him and cannot be hidden (Gen 6:5)26. There is no rug that sin can be swept under that God would not still see it. Additionally, the terms for ‘forever’ only cease to mean ‘forever’ if there is an express modifier or condition. These modifiers are never used in connection with the judgment of the wicked27. The ultimate reason for an eternal hell is because God’s eternal and Just nature require a punishment for sins against Him.
Edwards and others preached that the fires of hell are both literal and figurative28. The parable of Lazarus and the rich man supports this conclusion as the rich man desires to have a drop of water for his burning tongue29. There is much to support that hell will be a place of mental, physical, and emotional torment. Many people have shied away from this, if just in the minimal amount of discussion or preaching they lend to it. But the reality is that the wicked will be punished forever day and night (Rev 20:10). In fact, those who appear before the Great White Throne Judgment are judged and then thrown back into hell (Rev 20:13-15).
Critique: The traditional viewpoint often comes under scrutiny for its consignment of the entire human race into destruction apart from the grace of God. In particular, the doctrine of the inherent sinfulness of man is criticized for its opposition to human free will. It would be one thing for men to reject God from a position of neutrality, but for man to be born in sin is quite offensive to modern sensibilities. Yet, this is exactly what the Scripture teaches (Psalm 51:5).
Another common objection is that if hell is real and eternal, all men must be given equal means to avoid this fate, through the preaching of the Gospel or otherwise30. The man in the rainforest who has no missionary come during his lifetime is at a disadvantage to the man growing up near a church in New York City. The problem is that this view assumes that God owes salvation to men, when He does not. It also assumes that men are the determining factor in salvation, when Scripture plainly teaches that it is God who appoints men for salvation. This actually gives profound hope that God will send missionaries to save those whom He appointed to salvation. Although unpalatable to the modern man, the traditional viewpoint renders the biblical information in a fair way, without seeking outside support from other faiths and traditions.
Conclusion
Although the four views represented here are not the only views of hell that have circulated in human society, they represent well the broad lines of thought in the consideration of a concept which has touched men through the ages. The literal reality of hell is set forth in Scripture unapologetically, but with great warning. The Holiness of God demands a Just punishment for the sins of men made in His image that have rebelled against Him. However, the bold statement of this reality should not be divorced from the heart of God in Scripture that men would repent and turn to Him. The viewpoint one has of hell will determine how he lives his life. To be wrong on this one issue will cost men their entire eternal destiny. Nothing less than the fate of man rests on this one issue. In the meantime, the call of the Gospel goes out.
And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent: Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the world in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead.
Acts 17:30-31
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cicero. 7th Oration, n.d.
Clark, Kelly James. “God Is Great, God Is Good: Medieval Conceptions of Divine Goodness and the Problem of Hell.” Religious Studies 37, no. 1 (2001): 15–31.
Fudge, Edward William, and Robert A. Peterson. Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue. First Edition edition. Downers Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2000.
Gerstner, John H. Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Ministries, 1998.
Gundry, Stanley N., John F. Walvoord, Zachary J. Hayes, and Clark H. Pinnock. Four Views on Hell. Edited by William Crockett. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997.
Hakim, Albert B. “Hell, Population Zero.” Commonweal 142, no. 20 (December 18, 2015): 14–17.
Hall, Lindsey. Swinburne’s Hell and Hick’s Universalism: Are We Free to Reject God? Aldershot, Hampshire ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate Pub Ltd, 2003.
Hick, John. Death and Eternal Life. First Edition edition. London: HarperCollins Distribution Services, 1976.
Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids, Mich.; Exeter: Eerdmans, 1979.
John Macarthur. “Three Reasons to Fear God,” 2008 Resolved Conference, March 15, 2008. http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/CONF-RC08-03/three-reasons-to-fear-god-2008-resolved-conference.
Kershnar, S. “The Injustice of Hell.” International Journal for Philosophy of Religion 58, no. 2 (2005): 103–123.
Livermore, D. P. Proof-Texts of Endless Punishment: Examined and Explained. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 1862.
Shea, John. What a modern Catholic believes about sin, heaven & hell. Two best-sellers now complete in one volume edition. Chicago: Thomas More, 1972.
Timmerman, John. Fatal Choice: A Pilgrim’s Guide to Hell. Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2014.
Van Holten, Wilko. “Can the Traditional View of Hell Be Defended? An Evaluation of Some Arguments for Eternal Punishment.” Anglican Theological Review 85, no. 3 (2003): 457–476.
1. Cicero, 7th Oration, n.d., 207. ↩
2. John Shea, *What a modern Catholic believes about sin, heaven & ↩
hell*, Two best-sellers now complete in one volume edition.
(Chicago: Thomas More, 1972), 52.
3. Shea, What a modern Catholic believes about sin, heaven & hell, ↩
63.
4. Shea, What a modern Catholic believes about sin, heaven & hell. ↩
5. Shea, What a modern Catholic believes about sin, heaven & hell, ↩
91.
6. D. P. Livermore, *Proof-Texts of Endless Punishment: Examined and ↩
Explained* (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 1862), 32.
7. Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, ↩
Mich.; Exeter: Eerdmans, 1979), 265.
8. Albert B. Hakim, “Hell, Population Zero.,” Commonweal 142, no. ↩
20 (December 18, 2015): 16.
9. Shea, What a modern Catholic believes about sin, heaven & hell, ↩
71.
10. S. Kershnar, “The Injustice of Hell,” *International Journal for ↩
Philosophy of Religion* 58, no. 2 (2005): 109.
11. Shea, What a modern Catholic believes about sin, heaven & hell, ↩
75.
12. Lindsey Hall, *Swinburne’s Hell and Hick’s Universalism: Are We ↩
Free to Reject God?* (Aldershot, Hampshire ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate
Pub Ltd, 2003), 122.
13. John Hick, Death and Eternal Life, First Edition edition. ↩
(London: HarperCollins Distribution Services, 1976), 455.
14. Shea, What a modern Catholic believes about sin, heaven & hell, ↩
76.
15. Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, *Two Views of Hell: ↩
A Biblical & Theological Dialogue*, First Edition edition. (Downers
Grove, Ill: IVP Academic, 2000), 22.
16. Kelly James Clark, “God Is Great, God Is Good: Medieval ↩
Conceptions of Divine Goodness and the Problem of Hell,” *Religious
Studies* 37, no. 1 (2001): 22.
17. Fudge and Peterson, Two Views of Hell, 23. ↩
18. Fudge and Peterson, Two Views of Hell, 27. ↩
19. Fudge and Peterson, Two Views of Hell, 43. ↩
20. Fudge and Peterson, Two Views of Hell, 32. ↩
21. Fudge and Peterson, Two Views of Hell, 30. ↩
22. John Macarthur, “Three Reasons to Fear God” (2008 Resolved ↩
Conference, March 15, 2008),
http://www.gty.org/resources/sermons/CONF-RC08-03/three-reasons-to-fear-god-2008-resolved-conference.
23. Wilko Van Holten, “Can the Traditional View of Hell Be Defended? ↩
An Evaluation of Some Arguments for Eternal Punishment.,” *Anglican
Theological Review* 85, no. 3 (2003): 463.
24. Stanley N. Gundry et al., Four Views on Hell, ed by. William ↩
Crockett (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Zondervan, 1997), 27.
25. John Timmerman, Fatal Choice: A Pilgrim’s Guide to Hell ↩
(Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2014), 144.
26. Timmerman, Fatal Choice, 148. ↩
27. Gundry et al., Four Views on Hell, 18. ↩
28. John H. Gerstner, Jonathan Edwards on Heaven and Hell (Morgan, ↩
PA: Soli Deo Gloria Ministries, 1998), 54.
29. Gundry et al., Four Views on Hell, 28. ↩
30. Gundry et al., Four Views on Hell, 11. ↩