Four Views on Hell

by William V. Crockett (Editor), Zachary J. Hayes (Contributor), Clark H. Pinnock (Contributor)

Genres: Theology

190 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 1992

About the author

William V. Crockett is a writer, scholar, and professor in Nyack, New York. A graduate of University of Winnipeg, Princeton Theological Seminary, and University of Glasgow (Ph.D.), he has lectured and written extensively on theological issues. With his expertise in classical antiquity, Crockett is making his mark as a novelist. His two novels, WORLDS APART and A CELT IN ROME are set in the second century Roman Empire. He lives with his wife, Karen, in rustic Sussex County, New Jersey, where he is hard at work on a modern thriller, The Apocalypse Gene, set at Yale University.

Reviews

[Weadee · Rating 4 out of 5]

It was a very good read although towards the end it became clear why a second edition was needed. Not that the arguments weren't comprehensive (because they were), just that I don't think there were even 4 views here to begin with.

John Walvoord (representing the view of eternal conscious punishment) and William Crockett (arguing for a "metaphorical" view) are essentially arguing for the same thing—eternal conscious torment. What difference does it make if there are alternate means? So what if there are literal flames in hell or if hell merely represents some form of mental anguish? The only thing gained from breaking with tradition is that a metaphorical view seems less like torture. But if the goal is not, as Crockett claims, to water down the severity of hell, then not much is achieved and leaves us with the same problem as before. The second addition rightfully accounts for this by consolidating the two. Either way, I still found myself agreeing with the metaphorical view and felt at home with his reasoning. We are always limited when we use language to convey something and even more so when describing something completely foreign to the human mind. I think Zachary Hayes is absolutely correct to say that the text we have bears witness, in deeply human and limited ways, to divine revelation. Is language so complete that it leaves nothing unsaid? Can it describe everything wholly and in totality? I don't think so. The question then, in my opinion, is understanding when the language the Bible uses is symbolic and when it is not.

The chapter presented by Zachary Hayes also didn't add much to the conversation since purgatory is not a view of hell at all. By his admission (and catholic tradition) hell is separate from purgatory. While his chapter was an interesting discussion on purification, it doesn't add anything to the discussion on hell itself. And I find that unfortunate since his chapter was the most thorough and well-written (despite my knee-jerk reaction to skip it). I looked forward to reading his responses at the end of each chapter because of how thoughtfully he engaged with the text. I am curious to hear what his actual view on hell is.

With that said I felt the book essentially came down to 2 views, neither of which I found very compelling.

First, John Walvoord argues for the traditional evangelical view of eternal conscious torment; an argument familiar to most. I thought he did an excellent dive into the etymology of the word "hell" and its basis in the Bible. I really enjoyed his exploration of the words gehenna, 'olam, and aihios. What I didn't like, however, was the tone of his arguments. I am honestly quite tired of arguments like his that rely heavily on the notion that anyone who does not agree with them denies the Word of God. Labelling all other views as unbiblical or heresy is a fear tactic to try and discredit conversation and honestly has no place in a book like this. It hinders productive discourse. I found it extremely frustrating to approach a viewpoint such as his with genuine curiosity and leave feeling belittled and dismissed. He casually says that "...many who reject eternal punishment also reject the inerrancy and accuracy of the Bible and even reject the teachings of Jesus" to try and lend credibility to his point but in reality, such statements are red herrings or red flags. It is ironic that he makes arguments based on what is implied and what we can assume the text means while in the same breath arguing for adherence to only what is stated. Furthermore, his statements on the "infinite nature of sin" demanding "infinite punishment as a divine judgment" are honestly a bit alarming. Why would anyone rationalize like that? Infinite punishment for a finite deed is disproportionate, to say the least, and cannot be used to justify unending torment. I am sometimes weary of traditionalists who take a very literal view of the Word as they sometimes claim to know too much and this is what I found with Walvrood.

Then there was the conditional view presented by Clark Pinnock. This is the view that the lost will be destroyed completely and perish forever. This is the belief I subscribe to but I'm not sure that this made me feel any more confident that it is correct. It is unfortunate that he spends so much of his time postulating on God's love and what hell would say about God if He were to burn people up for eternity because, well, I don't care and it really shouldn't matter. I have to agree with Walvoord that human opinion does little to change a situation and has little bearing on the issue! Pinnock admits that he is "rejecting the traditional view of hell in part out of a sense of moral and theological revulsion to it" and I think that is very shaky ground to stand on (even if I find myself with the same revulsion). Pinnock does well when he finally gets to the crux of the argument and addresses the problems traditionalists find with annihilationism by providing a biblical, theological, and philosophical case for his alternative position. He mentions that the Bible frequently uses language of destruction and death to describe the fate of the wicked, rather than eternal existence in torment. Most interesting to me was when he explained that nowhere in Scripture is the soul ever called eternal or immortal and that it is actually founded in Hellenistic doctrine. Still, I would've appreciated a more in-depth analysis of the major proof texts provided by traditionalists because I don't yet feel I have sufficient reason to dismiss them.

I complained a lot but don't get me wrong, this was a very fascinating read! The counterpoints series has been one that I've looked forward to reading for quite some time now and will come back to again. The book doesn't leave you with a final verdict and there shouldn't be. Hell is a divine mystery and I want to "live with a radical trust in God even as we move through life with vast areas of ignorance." Even when it comes to something as scary as hell.

Digital copy of the book accessed here

[Becca · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow. I appreciate the thorough nature of this book. The viewpoints are adequately represented because each chapter is written by a proponent of each view, and followed with a response from the other three authors.

I found the chapters on purgatory (Hayes) and annihilation (Pinnock) to be the most interesting and compelling. The first two chapters I found to be tired and unconvincing, and relying too much on fear-tactics and threats of veering away from tradition (Walvoord). Even the “metaphorical” view of hell still posits hell is a place of eternal torment, and I think that is just as sadistic as literal flames (Crockett).

I sought out this book to get a fuller picture on the Scriptural basis for hell because I haven’t actually surveyed it. While I read Love Wins, and liked it, if I’m being honest it was far too surface-level and one-sided. It has a place, certainly, and was a refreshing change from the fire and brimstone of the evangelical tradition. But it wasn’t complete or intellectually rigorous.

After reading this book, I come away with a fuller picture of what the Bible actually says about hell and what that means. Though I don’t have the answers about this topic, I have a better understanding of which viewpoints actually hold water. By this, I mean which perspectives are valid when looking at Christian Scripture and what the text says about the character of God and the nature of humanity. The idea of a literal and eternal conscious torment is derived more from Greek philosophy - the Hellenistic idea of the immortal soul - than from the Christian tradition. In fact, it influenced the tradition and the way we read Scripture.

I feel that the idea of annihilation makes the most sense. If, of course, hell is something that people choose. And by this, I mean that hell exists as a necessary implication of the gift of human freedom. While universal salvation might be attractive, that idea would require even those who reject such a prospect to live forever, and that would make God coercive. Whereas hell is also not eternal punishment, because that would make God vindictive and sadistic. Therefore, annihilation, whether preceded by some kind of punishment, or even a purgatorial process at a chance at redemption, is the perspective I am leaning toward.

[Dennis · Rating 4 out of 5]

There were some things I didn't know that were presented in the book (several in Hayes's chapter). This was my first "four views" style books, and as such, I might have enjoyed it more than I would in a different context. That being said, I did appreciate the style and articulation of points and counterpoints.

[Joseph · Rating 2 out of 5]

When the 3 views you disagree with don't make you reconsider your view, and when the view you agree with is presented in a way that almost does, you probably are not going to give the book a high rating...

John Walvoord makes the case that Hell is a place of eternal torment, and one in which the lost are tormented in literal fire. He provides the same passages used in every other attempt to demonstrate that eternal torment is true, and insists that it should be read as being in real fire because, well, it says fire.

William Crockett puts for the "metaphorical" view. He views Hell as a place of eternal suffering, but one in which the fire is a metaphor for other things. He actually doesn't go very in depth in explaining why it should be read metaphorically. Basically, he argues that Jews in the period between the prophets used fire metaphorically, and it makes good sense, so, that's why it is that way in the Bible. He devotes most of his portion in attempting to prove that the Bible does teach eternal torment. However, rather than focusing on scripture specifically as Walvoord does (albeit unsuccessfully), his argument focuses much more on historical background. The Jews of that time all believed in eternal torment (not even close to true, BTW), so Jesus must have affirmed it (since He didn't say that they were all wrong). Since Paul wrote to gentiles who were Greek-minded, everything he wrote about destruction must be viewed through that lens (even when he says things like immortality is something to be sought after in Romans 2:7). He also argues that, since everyone believed in eternal torment, the writers of the New Testament must have also. Therefore, what they wrote in the New Testament must mean eternal torment, because that is what they believed. I think you can see that that is the exact opposite of how one should approach biblical hermeneutics. Please get a copy at your local library or bookstore - you will see that that is not an unfair assessment of Crockett's main arguments.

Zachary Hayes defends the Catholic view of purgatory. It is an interesting chapter for sure, but not all that relevant. Why? Because he does not hold a different view of Hell. He believes that hell is separate from purgatory (as Catholic doctrine teaches). The place where the unsaved go, Hell, is the Hell that Walvoord talks about (I should add that I don't believe he actually specifies if he thinks that the fire is literal; I recall that it was more implied). Really, this book represents 3 views on Hell in which 2 people share one. Now, had they brought in a universalist, who believed that Hell is purgatorial (that those who go there have their sins burned away so they could go to Heaven), that that would be a 4th view of Hell.

Finally, Clark Pinnock defends the view of conditionalism, the view that only the saved will be immortal, and the lost will be destroyed completely and gone forever. I believe that this is what the Bible teaches. Unfortunately, he spends way too much of his portion making philosophical arguments about God's love. When addressing Revelation 14:9-11, he fails to point out that the symbol of smoke rising forever is used in Isaiah 34:8-10 to speak of a city that was destroyed. That's kind of important. Why else would the traditionalist be wrong in thinking that rising smoke = continual burning? The reason it does not mean that is because the Old Testament uses smoke rising forever to represent destruction, not continual burning. That's a huge thing to leave out. He only touches upon the important texts, and doesn't even look at Revelation 20:10 (the most important one).

Each contributor also gets to respond to each other's contribution. Most are not very substantive (which makes sense, as they are all very short). However, Walvoord does give us a few gems gems when responding to Clark Pinnock, such as claiming that conditionalism challenges scriptural inerrancy (right or wrong, it is based on the assumption that the Bible is 100% true), and that those who hold this position deny the resurrection of all people (SOME do, like Jehovah's Witnesses, but that is not core to the belief. That's like saying that Calvinists, by definition, believe in infant baptism. Some do, and some do not). These comments are highly erroneous, if not slanderous (I'm assuming the former, that Walvoord was mistaken and not intentionally deceitful).

This book doesn't really get anyone anywhere. Whatever you believe, you will probably finish the book and not even reconsider your view.

**UPDATE** In light of comments by some who have found the exegetical arguments in Pinnock's section compelling, and in light of the overall usefulness of knowing the major arguments of those who hold other views on hell, I have taken the unusual step of raising my rating of the book to 2 stars. (March 12, 2014)***

[Seth Pierce · Rating 3 out of 5]

I really enjoyed this book. The format of having one author express a view then allowing the other three to respond is brilliant and helpful. I do have a couple critiques that prevented this from being four or five stars.

The first is John Walvoord. Quite frankly, int this volume, his work is terrible and befitting someone who had one semester of "Bible college." He offers very little int he way of footnoting, and seems to be a record stuck on "well everybody else doesn't believe in the innerrency of scripture" which is a red herring. He really does not engage the debate in any great detail compared to the others. This is the first I have read a work by him and unless anyone can recommend anything better this will be the last. I am sure many have been led to Christ through his ministry but this was pitiful. If you are going to attempt to defend a literal eternally burning hell Woolvard is not the one to send.

The second issue had to do with length. While I understand this to be a primer and not an exhaustive work the length prevented each scholar from addressing all the points to sufficiently argue their interpretation.

That said many excellent points and questions were raised by the three scholars outside of Woolvard. I recommend buying this as a stepping stone into deeper study.

[Christina Moss · Rating 4 out of 5]

I gave the book as a whole four stars because I enjoyed the dialogue between Crockett, Hayes, and Pinnock, but if I was rating it solely on the basis of Walvoord's chapter it would have earned 1.5 stars at most, and Walvoord's rebuttals were even worse. He basically kept using inerrancy as a weapon (even though none of his co-contributors dismissed the authority of the Scriptures, although Hayes as a Catholic understandably takes a different approach to them.) The volume editors might have been better served by removing Walvoord's chapter and view entirely, leaving Crockett as the sole ECT advocate, and adding a chapter by a Christian universalist in the tradition of George MacDonald.

Hayes' chapter did an excellent job of outlining the Catholic doctrine of purgatory for evangelical audiences. After reading his chapter, I understand why they hold to that doctrine and, although I'm agnostic as to what form it might take, am certainly open to the concept that our process of sanctification will continue after death. However, I expect that most evangelical audiences will focus on the debate between Crockett and Pinnock as the two major alternatives. I know I did. For those, this volume provides a good starting point, but I think I may yet look into some of the books recommended in the essays' footnotes for more detail.