What do you think?
Rate this book
Spectrum Multiview
Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue
Hell is real and terrible. It is the fate of those who reject God. Evangelicals agree about this unhappy truth. Yet on some questions about hell disagreements arise.
Some evangelicals believe the wicked will experience perpetual, conscious torment after death. Others argue that the wicked will experience a limited period of conscious punishment and then they will cease to exist.
In this book you will find an irenic yet frank debate between two evangelical theologians who present strong scriptural and theological evidence for and against each view. Both make a case that their view is more consistent with Scripture and with the holy and just nature of a loving God.
Robert Peterson defends the traditional view that those who do not have faith in Christ will suffer eternally in hell. Edward Fudge advocates the conditionalist perspective that after a period of suffering, the unfaithful will experience a complete extinguishing, or annihilation, of existence. In addition, each author presents a rebuttal to the viewpoint of the other.
Here is a dialogue that will inform and challenge those on both sides, while impressing on all the need for faithful proclamation of the gospel of deliverance from sin and death.
Some evangelicals believe the wicked will experience perpetual, conscious torment after death. Others argue that the wicked will experience a limited period of conscious punishment and then they will cease to exist.
In this book you will find an irenic yet frank debate between two evangelical theologians who present strong scriptural and theological evidence for and against each view. Both make a case that their view is more consistent with Scripture and with the holy and just nature of a loving God.
Robert Peterson defends the traditional view that those who do not have faith in Christ will suffer eternally in hell. Edward Fudge advocates the conditionalist perspective that after a period of suffering, the unfaithful will experience a complete extinguishing, or annihilation, of existence. In addition, each author presents a rebuttal to the viewpoint of the other.
Here is a dialogue that will inform and challenge those on both sides, while impressing on all the need for faithful proclamation of the gospel of deliverance from sin and death.
228 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2000
14 people are currently reading
111 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews
February 28, 2019
Two Views of Hell is a debate between Edward W. Fudge and Robert A. Peterson about how long hell lasts. Fudge is a leading evangelical advocate for conditionalism, which teaches that the wicked will be destroyed body and soul in hell. He is the author of The Fire That Consumes, now in its third edition, the best single-volume treatment of conditonalism. Peterson is a leading evangelical advocate of traditionalism, which teaches the eternal conscious torment of the wicked in hell. He is the author of Hell on Trial, probably the best single-author treatment of traditionalism from a Reformed or Calvinist perspective currently available.
The debate follows a point-counterpoint format. Fudge opens Part One of Two Views on Hell with “The Case for Conditionalism.” Peterson then offers “A Traditionalist Response to Conditionalism.” Part Two reverses the order. Peterson makes “The Case for Traditionalism,” then Fudge offers “A Conditionalist Response to Traditionalism.” Each author makes his case on the basis of exegesis of relevant biblical texts combined with systematic theological considerations. Peterson also makes an argument from the testimony of leading theologians, but with Fudge, I don’t think such an argument is persuasive as to the truth of Peterson’s case, though it certainly explains why traditionalism is traditional.
To oversimplify the debate, the crucial issue is the meaning of the words deathand destruction on the one hand, and eternal on the other. (I’m sure Fudge and Peterson would blanch at my simplification, for they bring many more arguments to bear than just disputes over these words. But, I think my admitted oversimplification helps illuminate the essence of the debate.) For Fudge, the words death and destruction, which constitute the bulk of the Bible’s descriptions of the fate of the wicked, mean the literal cessation of bodily and spiritual existence. At the Final Judgment, God will pronounce sentence on the wicked and they will be annihilated, for lack of a better term. By contrast, Peterson understands the same words in terms of separation, loss, and ruin, not annihilation. Fudge argues that traditionalism assumes an unbiblical doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Because the soul exists immortally, whether it is saved or damned, hell must last eternally.
Peterson, on the other hand, believes that hell is eternal because the Bible speaks of “eternal punishment.” He cites ten biblical texts—two from the Old Testament, eight from the New—that lay the biblical foundation of the case for traditionalism: Isaiah 66:2–4; Daniel 12:1–2; Matthew 18:6–9; 25:31–46; Mark 9:42–48; 2 Thessalonians 5:1–10; Jude 7, 13; Revelation 14:9–11; and 20:10, 14–15. Although these are not Peterson’s or Fudge’s analogies, the tradtionalist hell is like life imprisonment without possibility of parole, while the conditionalist hell is like capital punishment. Both are final and irreversible, but whereas one is an eternal process of punishment, the other is a temporal sentence with eternal consequences.
If you’ve read any contemporary books on hell by evangelical authors, this book contains no surprises. Each author treads a well-worn path of argumentation. Each author makes the standard arguments for his position and the standard relies to his opponent’s. To me, despite the rigor of his arguments, Peterson came off a bit tetchy in his reply to Fudge and a bit dismissive of Fudge’s previous writings when he made his own case. By the end of the debate—that is, in his reply to Peterson—even Fudge seemed a bit peeved. One of the frustrating things about debates such as this is the mutual stupefaction each expresses at how the other could possibly believe what he does.
While I appreciate the scholarship Fudge and Peterson bring to their respective cases, this is not the book I would recommend if you’re looking for only one book about the evangelical debate on hell. I would start with Four Views on Hell, 2nd ed., edited by Preston Sprinkle (2016). It’s more recent, contains an argument for universalism and hints at a case for something like a traditional view that is more amenable to Arminians. If you’re collecting a library on the debate, however—as I seem to be doing—include this one.
Book Reviewed
Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
P.S. If you like my review, please click “Helpful” on my Amazon review page.
The debate follows a point-counterpoint format. Fudge opens Part One of Two Views on Hell with “The Case for Conditionalism.” Peterson then offers “A Traditionalist Response to Conditionalism.” Part Two reverses the order. Peterson makes “The Case for Traditionalism,” then Fudge offers “A Conditionalist Response to Traditionalism.” Each author makes his case on the basis of exegesis of relevant biblical texts combined with systematic theological considerations. Peterson also makes an argument from the testimony of leading theologians, but with Fudge, I don’t think such an argument is persuasive as to the truth of Peterson’s case, though it certainly explains why traditionalism is traditional.
To oversimplify the debate, the crucial issue is the meaning of the words deathand destruction on the one hand, and eternal on the other. (I’m sure Fudge and Peterson would blanch at my simplification, for they bring many more arguments to bear than just disputes over these words. But, I think my admitted oversimplification helps illuminate the essence of the debate.) For Fudge, the words death and destruction, which constitute the bulk of the Bible’s descriptions of the fate of the wicked, mean the literal cessation of bodily and spiritual existence. At the Final Judgment, God will pronounce sentence on the wicked and they will be annihilated, for lack of a better term. By contrast, Peterson understands the same words in terms of separation, loss, and ruin, not annihilation. Fudge argues that traditionalism assumes an unbiblical doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Because the soul exists immortally, whether it is saved or damned, hell must last eternally.
Peterson, on the other hand, believes that hell is eternal because the Bible speaks of “eternal punishment.” He cites ten biblical texts—two from the Old Testament, eight from the New—that lay the biblical foundation of the case for traditionalism: Isaiah 66:2–4; Daniel 12:1–2; Matthew 18:6–9; 25:31–46; Mark 9:42–48; 2 Thessalonians 5:1–10; Jude 7, 13; Revelation 14:9–11; and 20:10, 14–15. Although these are not Peterson’s or Fudge’s analogies, the tradtionalist hell is like life imprisonment without possibility of parole, while the conditionalist hell is like capital punishment. Both are final and irreversible, but whereas one is an eternal process of punishment, the other is a temporal sentence with eternal consequences.
If you’ve read any contemporary books on hell by evangelical authors, this book contains no surprises. Each author treads a well-worn path of argumentation. Each author makes the standard arguments for his position and the standard relies to his opponent’s. To me, despite the rigor of his arguments, Peterson came off a bit tetchy in his reply to Fudge and a bit dismissive of Fudge’s previous writings when he made his own case. By the end of the debate—that is, in his reply to Peterson—even Fudge seemed a bit peeved. One of the frustrating things about debates such as this is the mutual stupefaction each expresses at how the other could possibly believe what he does.
While I appreciate the scholarship Fudge and Peterson bring to their respective cases, this is not the book I would recommend if you’re looking for only one book about the evangelical debate on hell. I would start with Four Views on Hell, 2nd ed., edited by Preston Sprinkle (2016). It’s more recent, contains an argument for universalism and hints at a case for something like a traditional view that is more amenable to Arminians. If you’re collecting a library on the debate, however—as I seem to be doing—include this one.
Book Reviewed
Edward William Fudge and Robert A. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Debate (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2000).
P.S. If you like my review, please click “Helpful” on my Amazon review page.
February 12, 2022
If you are just getting started on your investigation of the biblical doctrine of final punishment, this is the book to read. At least at the time this was written (years prior to the "Rethinking Hell" movement), both Fudge and Peterson were the best proponents of their respective positions. Both men present very reasoned presentations of their positions covering nearly the full spectrum of arguments from both history and theology. Whether you are protestant or Catholic/Orthodox, I believe you will be very edified by this work. While I have my criticisms of both positions (you can contact me directly if you'd like to know where I stand at this point), I don't think there were too many stones left unturned.
I would recommend starting here, and then reading both men's books to get a more in depth look. I haven't read Peterson's, but plan to soon. I have read Fudge, and his book is quite exhaustive. Starting with Fudge before anything else might be overwhelming. This is why I suggest starting here because you can hear both sides before you delve deep into one of the sides. You really should hear both sides so that when you read Peterson or Fudge, you'll already know the arguments for and against.
If I could think of one criticism of the book as a whole, I wish there had been one final chapter for each to respond to the responses. The reason being, both men in their responses made claims of misrepresentation and there were a few key points that I really would have liked to see clarified. But that doesn't effect the overall usefulness of this work.
Overall, I would say to read this book before reading anything else on the topic of hell and final punishment.
I would recommend starting here, and then reading both men's books to get a more in depth look. I haven't read Peterson's, but plan to soon. I have read Fudge, and his book is quite exhaustive. Starting with Fudge before anything else might be overwhelming. This is why I suggest starting here because you can hear both sides before you delve deep into one of the sides. You really should hear both sides so that when you read Peterson or Fudge, you'll already know the arguments for and against.
If I could think of one criticism of the book as a whole, I wish there had been one final chapter for each to respond to the responses. The reason being, both men in their responses made claims of misrepresentation and there were a few key points that I really would have liked to see clarified. But that doesn't effect the overall usefulness of this work.
Overall, I would say to read this book before reading anything else on the topic of hell and final punishment.
July 5, 2024
AN EXCELLENT WRITTEN DIALOGUE CONTRASTING HELL AND “CONDITIONAL IMMORTALITY”
Edward William Fudge (born 1944) is a theologian and lawyer (and former Church of Christ minister), who has written books such as 'The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment,' 'The Divine Rescue: The Gripping Drama of a Lost World and of the Creator Who Will Not Let It Go,' 'Hell: A Final Word,' etc.; Fudge is also the subject of the 2012 independent film 'Hell & Mr. Fudge.'
Robert A. Peterson is professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Theological Seminary; he has also written books such as 'Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment,' 'Salvation Accomplished by the Son: The Work of Christ,' 'Why I Am Not an Arminian,' 'Election and Free Will: God's Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility,' etc.
The authors state in the Introduction to this 2000 book, “We want to bring the debate into sharper focus by stating what is NOT the focus of this book. The debate is not over universalism, the view that all people will ultimately be saved… we reject [universalism] as contradicting the teaching of Scripture… Another topic that is not a subject of debate in this book is that of postmortem evangelism, the idea that persons have an opportunity after death to believe the gospel of Christ… We also agree that the Bible’s general picture of the end includes the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgment, followed by terrible suffering for the lost. We disagree, however, as to the nature of the eternal punishment of which Scripture speaks.”
The book begins with a 60-page presentation by Fudge, followed by a 30-page response by Peterson; they Peterson makes his presentation, and Fudge responds.
Fudge states, “Some writers have suggested that Sheol was a place of punishment for sin. The translators of the King James Version contributed to this misunderstanding by rendering Sheol as ‘hell.’ However, such faithful saints as Jacob, David, and Job all expected to go to Sheol when they died (Gen 37:35; Ps. 49:15; Job 14:13). Most importantly, Jesus Christ himself went to Sheol (Greek ‘Hades’) upon his death (Acts 2:27, 31).” (Pg. 23)
He asserts, “The writers of Scripture do emphasize the thoroughness of Sodom’s destruction. On the day after it was destroyed, Abraham went out to view the scene. Where once a bustling city had stood he saw only ‘dense smoke arising from the land, like smoke from a furnace’ (Gen 19:28). God had executed his judgment, and no sound was heard in its wake. The sinners were all gone. The silence was unbroken. Throughout Scripture from this point rising smoke symbolizes complete destruction (Is 34:10, Rev 14:11, 19:3).” (Pg. 28)
He argues, “Few serous interpreters attempt to take the details of the story [of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31] literally. To do so would require us to imagine the saved and the lost conversing with each other after death, in full view of each other and at close range. We also would have to think of literal tongues that burn with literal fire and literal water that does not cool them, not to mention physical bodies that can be tortured by fire but which somehow do not burn up. Even if this story were historical narrative… the parable… still would tell us absolutely nothing about the FINAL destiny of the damned. We should not misuse this parable by trying to make it teach the traditional doctrine of unending conscious torment. That notion is simply not there.” (Pg. 41)
He observes, “John 3:16, perhaps the most-memorized verse among evangelicals, contrasts the final alternatives beyond this present life. Some people will enjoy ‘eternal life’ but others will ‘perish.’ We ought to take these words at face value. There is no scriptural reason to explain them in any other way.” (Pg. 51) Of the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” [Mk 3:29], he suggests, “The ‘eternal sin’ is not a sin committed forever… Because this sin will never be forgiven, its CONSEQUENCES last forever. It is ‘eternal’ in its results... the outcome is everlasting, not the process. God will not be forever saving or judging or redeeming or punishing or destroying. He accomplishes each activity, then stops. But the results of each activity last forever.” (Pg. 51) Later, he adds, “Throughout the New Testament, ‘destruction’ is the opposite of being ‘saved.’ There is no reason to think of unending conscious torment.” (Pg. 67)
He says of 2 Peter 2:4, “Whatever one makes out of this passage and the angels in Tartarus, it adds nothing to our understanding of the final doom of human sinners, because it concerns angels, not people, and because it speaks of detention before the judgment rather than punishment following the judgment.” (Pg. 70)
He suggests about Revelation 14:9-11, “Some people have interpreted these expressions as if they require us to imagine the lost suffering endless in conscious agony. That is a possible interpretation---if we ignore how the Bible itself uses the same language elsewhere… this passage … provides us with an outstanding opportunity to let the Bible interpret itself rather than importing meaning into its symbolic language…” (Pg. 75)
He states, “In John’s visions in Revelation, two characters called the beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 19:20; 20:10)… Whether we understand them to be specific persons or impersonal forces, the fate of the beast and false prophet does not define the final destiny of wicked human beings… sound biblical interpretation requires us to explain the mysterious sayings of Scripture in light of its many plain statements, and not the other way around. Revelation 20:7-10 seems to be the strongest biblical picture supporting the traditional view of unending conscious torment…” (Pg. 78)
Peterson states, “I agree that New Testament writers commonly use the vocabulary of destruction to refer to the final fate of the wicked. But I do not agree with Fudge that these passages teach annihilationism… It is not necessary … to interpret the New Testament vocabulary of destruction literally as teaching annihilationism. Rather, it is possible to understand it figuratively as teaching traditionalism.” (Pg. 94)
He argues, “the word ‘destruction’ cannot bear Fudge’s meaning in Revelation 17:8, 11. There ‘destruction’ is prophesied for ‘the beast.’ … Furthermore, John teaches that the beast, the false prophet and Satan ‘will be tormented day and night for ever and ever’ (Rev 20:10). The beast’s ‘destruction,’ therefore, is not annihilation for eternal punishment!... The Bible … does not teach annihilation at all. It does use the vocabulary of destruction, and it would be POSSIBLE to read annihilationism into many passages that simply mention ‘death,’ ‘being destroyed’ and the like. Nonetheless, we ought not to do so, because other passages---even other passages using the vocabulary of destruction---are incompatible with annihilationism.” (Pg. 95)
He points out, “Matthew 25:41 records Jesus’ teaching that unsaved human beings will suffer the same fate as the devil and his angels. This text prompts the question: Does the Bible indicate what that fate will be? It does, in Revelation 20:10. There we read that ‘the devil’ … ‘will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.’ … The conclusion is irresistible. Unsaved human beings also will suffer conscious torment… But fudge employs a strategy of avoidance and skips this crucial verse.” (Pg. 107)
He explains, “Along with the majority of evangelical interpreters, I understand hellfire figuratively rather than literally. It was not Jesus’ intention to teach concerning the chemistry of hell. Instead, he sought to alert us of its terrible eternal reality that we might believe in him and be saved. No one interprets all the biblical pictures of hell literally. Jesus speaks of hypocrites’ being ‘cut to pieces’ before being cast into hell (Mt 24:51). Should we understand that the resurrected wicked will be drawn and quartered? Of course not. Rather, God employs images taken from our earthly life to teach us about the pains of hell.” (Pg. 147)
Fudge says of Revelation 14:9-11, “If this passage is talking about hell, it is one of only two texts in the whole Bible that makes hell sound anything like the traditionalist description of it. (The other passage is Revelation 20:10.) … Examined phrase by phrase, even Revelation 14:9-11 is consistent with conditionalism. Even if I could not explain this passage, however, we would be wrong to build a doctrine on it that flies squarely in the face of dozens of plain passages of Scripture from both the Old and the New Testament.” (Pg. 200-201)
This is an excellent, detailed, and cordial exchange of views; and the two participants have adequate space to deal with each other’s arguments in their own “responses.” This book will be “must reading” for anyone seriously studying the doctrines of Conditional Immortality/Annihilationism or Hell.
Edward William Fudge (born 1944) is a theologian and lawyer (and former Church of Christ minister), who has written books such as 'The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment,' 'The Divine Rescue: The Gripping Drama of a Lost World and of the Creator Who Will Not Let It Go,' 'Hell: A Final Word,' etc.; Fudge is also the subject of the 2012 independent film 'Hell & Mr. Fudge.'
Robert A. Peterson is professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Theological Seminary; he has also written books such as 'Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment,' 'Salvation Accomplished by the Son: The Work of Christ,' 'Why I Am Not an Arminian,' 'Election and Free Will: God's Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility,' etc.
The authors state in the Introduction to this 2000 book, “We want to bring the debate into sharper focus by stating what is NOT the focus of this book. The debate is not over universalism, the view that all people will ultimately be saved… we reject [universalism] as contradicting the teaching of Scripture… Another topic that is not a subject of debate in this book is that of postmortem evangelism, the idea that persons have an opportunity after death to believe the gospel of Christ… We also agree that the Bible’s general picture of the end includes the second coming of Christ, the resurrection of the dead and the Last Judgment, followed by terrible suffering for the lost. We disagree, however, as to the nature of the eternal punishment of which Scripture speaks.”
The book begins with a 60-page presentation by Fudge, followed by a 30-page response by Peterson; they Peterson makes his presentation, and Fudge responds.
Fudge states, “Some writers have suggested that Sheol was a place of punishment for sin. The translators of the King James Version contributed to this misunderstanding by rendering Sheol as ‘hell.’ However, such faithful saints as Jacob, David, and Job all expected to go to Sheol when they died (Gen 37:35; Ps. 49:15; Job 14:13). Most importantly, Jesus Christ himself went to Sheol (Greek ‘Hades’) upon his death (Acts 2:27, 31).” (Pg. 23)
He asserts, “The writers of Scripture do emphasize the thoroughness of Sodom’s destruction. On the day after it was destroyed, Abraham went out to view the scene. Where once a bustling city had stood he saw only ‘dense smoke arising from the land, like smoke from a furnace’ (Gen 19:28). God had executed his judgment, and no sound was heard in its wake. The sinners were all gone. The silence was unbroken. Throughout Scripture from this point rising smoke symbolizes complete destruction (Is 34:10, Rev 14:11, 19:3).” (Pg. 28)
He argues, “Few serous interpreters attempt to take the details of the story [of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke 16:19-31] literally. To do so would require us to imagine the saved and the lost conversing with each other after death, in full view of each other and at close range. We also would have to think of literal tongues that burn with literal fire and literal water that does not cool them, not to mention physical bodies that can be tortured by fire but which somehow do not burn up. Even if this story were historical narrative… the parable… still would tell us absolutely nothing about the FINAL destiny of the damned. We should not misuse this parable by trying to make it teach the traditional doctrine of unending conscious torment. That notion is simply not there.” (Pg. 41)
He observes, “John 3:16, perhaps the most-memorized verse among evangelicals, contrasts the final alternatives beyond this present life. Some people will enjoy ‘eternal life’ but others will ‘perish.’ We ought to take these words at face value. There is no scriptural reason to explain them in any other way.” (Pg. 51) Of the “blasphemy against the Holy Spirit” [Mk 3:29], he suggests, “The ‘eternal sin’ is not a sin committed forever… Because this sin will never be forgiven, its CONSEQUENCES last forever. It is ‘eternal’ in its results... the outcome is everlasting, not the process. God will not be forever saving or judging or redeeming or punishing or destroying. He accomplishes each activity, then stops. But the results of each activity last forever.” (Pg. 51) Later, he adds, “Throughout the New Testament, ‘destruction’ is the opposite of being ‘saved.’ There is no reason to think of unending conscious torment.” (Pg. 67)
He says of 2 Peter 2:4, “Whatever one makes out of this passage and the angels in Tartarus, it adds nothing to our understanding of the final doom of human sinners, because it concerns angels, not people, and because it speaks of detention before the judgment rather than punishment following the judgment.” (Pg. 70)
He suggests about Revelation 14:9-11, “Some people have interpreted these expressions as if they require us to imagine the lost suffering endless in conscious agony. That is a possible interpretation---if we ignore how the Bible itself uses the same language elsewhere… this passage … provides us with an outstanding opportunity to let the Bible interpret itself rather than importing meaning into its symbolic language…” (Pg. 75)
He states, “In John’s visions in Revelation, two characters called the beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire (Rev 19:20; 20:10)… Whether we understand them to be specific persons or impersonal forces, the fate of the beast and false prophet does not define the final destiny of wicked human beings… sound biblical interpretation requires us to explain the mysterious sayings of Scripture in light of its many plain statements, and not the other way around. Revelation 20:7-10 seems to be the strongest biblical picture supporting the traditional view of unending conscious torment…” (Pg. 78)
Peterson states, “I agree that New Testament writers commonly use the vocabulary of destruction to refer to the final fate of the wicked. But I do not agree with Fudge that these passages teach annihilationism… It is not necessary … to interpret the New Testament vocabulary of destruction literally as teaching annihilationism. Rather, it is possible to understand it figuratively as teaching traditionalism.” (Pg. 94)
He argues, “the word ‘destruction’ cannot bear Fudge’s meaning in Revelation 17:8, 11. There ‘destruction’ is prophesied for ‘the beast.’ … Furthermore, John teaches that the beast, the false prophet and Satan ‘will be tormented day and night for ever and ever’ (Rev 20:10). The beast’s ‘destruction,’ therefore, is not annihilation for eternal punishment!... The Bible … does not teach annihilation at all. It does use the vocabulary of destruction, and it would be POSSIBLE to read annihilationism into many passages that simply mention ‘death,’ ‘being destroyed’ and the like. Nonetheless, we ought not to do so, because other passages---even other passages using the vocabulary of destruction---are incompatible with annihilationism.” (Pg. 95)
He points out, “Matthew 25:41 records Jesus’ teaching that unsaved human beings will suffer the same fate as the devil and his angels. This text prompts the question: Does the Bible indicate what that fate will be? It does, in Revelation 20:10. There we read that ‘the devil’ … ‘will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.’ … The conclusion is irresistible. Unsaved human beings also will suffer conscious torment… But fudge employs a strategy of avoidance and skips this crucial verse.” (Pg. 107)
He explains, “Along with the majority of evangelical interpreters, I understand hellfire figuratively rather than literally. It was not Jesus’ intention to teach concerning the chemistry of hell. Instead, he sought to alert us of its terrible eternal reality that we might believe in him and be saved. No one interprets all the biblical pictures of hell literally. Jesus speaks of hypocrites’ being ‘cut to pieces’ before being cast into hell (Mt 24:51). Should we understand that the resurrected wicked will be drawn and quartered? Of course not. Rather, God employs images taken from our earthly life to teach us about the pains of hell.” (Pg. 147)
Fudge says of Revelation 14:9-11, “If this passage is talking about hell, it is one of only two texts in the whole Bible that makes hell sound anything like the traditionalist description of it. (The other passage is Revelation 20:10.) … Examined phrase by phrase, even Revelation 14:9-11 is consistent with conditionalism. Even if I could not explain this passage, however, we would be wrong to build a doctrine on it that flies squarely in the face of dozens of plain passages of Scripture from both the Old and the New Testament.” (Pg. 200-201)
This is an excellent, detailed, and cordial exchange of views; and the two participants have adequate space to deal with each other’s arguments in their own “responses.” This book will be “must reading” for anyone seriously studying the doctrines of Conditional Immortality/Annihilationism or Hell.
September 27, 2025
The back and forth got very picky and petty. The substantive arguments of both authors were good and worth wrestling with, but Peterson’s part of the book had an undercurrent of disrespect for Fudge. This, then, forced Fudge to respond to all kinds extraneous arguments and misrepresentations, which came across as frustrated and defensive.
I’ve read plenty of multiple views books (including both editions of Four Views on Hell), and I’ve never seen it get this petty. I blame the editor for not reining these guys in.
I’ve read plenty of multiple views books (including both editions of Four Views on Hell), and I’ve never seen it get this petty. I blame the editor for not reining these guys in.
March 11, 2017
Both authors often spoke past one another, which made this book less helpful than it could have been. Their responses to one another seemed overly personal and juvenile. Fudge had a kinder tone because he used more subtle putdowns than Peterson.
March 17, 2025
A debate about the nature and duration of hell between Conditionalist Edward Fudge and Tradiltionalist Robert Peterson. Both of the arguments made were a bit of a mixed bag. Some points were compelling, others unconvincing. I found the ‘response’ chapters to be particularly unimpressive - with both authors descending into straw manning the other, throwing up red herrings, all while accusing the other of the same. It degraded to the point of squabbling at some points. I would have preferred them to throw out the direct responses to one another and used up those pages to flesh out their respective stances more.
It did have its informative moments in understanding how the Church developed its orthodox understanding of hell.
If nothing else I feel the need to read each of their books on the subject as I found this one to be more of an overview.
It did have its informative moments in understanding how the Church developed its orthodox understanding of hell.
If nothing else I feel the need to read each of their books on the subject as I found this one to be more of an overview.
September 20, 2022
Good introduction to the Traditional and Annihilationist views.
I am uncomfortable however with talking about this topic academically. Of course, truth about the nature of God and His eschatological goals are essential. But this felt like it descended slightly into a dry academic discourse with a lack of awareness of the reality that we are talking about the eternal destiny of human beings. This, however, I doubt is avoidable.
For what it is worth, the Traditional view definitely comes out stronger. Fudge sadly resorts to Ad Hominum attacks, appeals to emotion, appeals to silence and questionable exegesis.
I am uncomfortable however with talking about this topic academically. Of course, truth about the nature of God and His eschatological goals are essential. But this felt like it descended slightly into a dry academic discourse with a lack of awareness of the reality that we are talking about the eternal destiny of human beings. This, however, I doubt is avoidable.
For what it is worth, the Traditional view definitely comes out stronger. Fudge sadly resorts to Ad Hominum attacks, appeals to emotion, appeals to silence and questionable exegesis.
June 1, 2019
This is a good starting book for anyone working through ideas of what has become a traditional position (for the west) on hell and eternity, and Biblical understandings which stand outside of that view. This book presents a nice overview of the main points to be considered, the positions of major historical theologians, and counterpoints on both sides of the issue.
June 8, 2022
Didn't find either argument particularly persuasive, especially found Peterson's style of argumentation unhelpful, though he did have some good points I hadn't considered. I liked how Fudge's rebuttal at the end was a systematic review of Peterson's essay, but I wish he had formulated his positive case a bit better.
I remain undecided on the issue.
I remain undecided on the issue.
November 1, 2020
An intense read. Took me a fair while to get through. Definitely a good read though to get a thorough amount of information on both sides of the argument.
April 2, 2014
What a heavy and interesting read. Absolutely infuriating at times, and yet I feel edified coming out of it.
Edward Fudge, who believes that the unsaved will be punished and then annihilated rather than tortured in Hell forever, gets the first argument. He is a "conditionalist," also known as an "annihilationist." His argument is poorly organized and hard to follow, but also very convincing if you can keep everything in your mind all at once. His main argument is that where the Bible talks of "everlasting" punishment/destruction, it means that the punishment/destruction is permanent and will never be undone.
Robert Peterson then comes in and counters Fudge's argument. Honestly, Peterson does himself a huge disservice by being extremely unlikeable, combative, and hypocritical. (1) He complains that Fudge creates straw man arguments by refuting "traditionalist" arguments that Peterson himself does not hold to. Peterson proceeds to do the same in his own main argument, but more importantly, I found it important that Fudge addressed those arguments, since you do hear them. (2) Peterson complains that when passages of Scripture do not indicate eternal conscious torment, Fudge claims that this must mean there is no eternal conscious torment. Peterson then does the same thing in reverse, stating that passages that say nothing about conditionalism prove his point that there will be eternal conscious torment. (3) Peterson complains that Fudge uses too much Greek, which he says is just there to make Fudge seem authoritative. I found the Greek expositions extremely helpful, since I myself don't know Greek and because English translations often differ a lot from each other. Peterson then turns around and refers several times to his "students" (making sure we know he's a professor) and even appeals to the field of linguistics (decidedly not his expertise). What is the point of that but to make himself look smart? (4) Peterson complains that Fudge appeals to emotion and makes inflammatory arguments. Yes, Fudge is decisive that he is correct, certainly, but what is the sin in that? This is an argument. Peterson then fills his whole main argument with the phrases "Fudge errs" and "Scripture is clear."
Peterson's main argument is far more organized than Fudge's, and is also fairly convincing. However, because he is so organized, Fudge's rebuttal is also nicely organized, and he finally helped me decide that I agree with him. I'm still maybe 75% sure, so not all the way there (Peterson did have some good points).
The final question I'm left with, that I wish the authors had been clearer on, relates to Matthew 25:46: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Peterson makes the good point that "eternal" here should mean the same thing both times. We know that "eternal life" means eternity in heaven - forever and ever alive with God. So what is eternal punishment? Does it mean being consciously tormented forever and ever, which obviously means you are alive (even though only the saved are granted eternal life and "the wages of sin is death")? Or does it mean that the punishment is permanent (in other words, it does not go on forever and ever, even though "eternal" means forever and ever with regard to eternal life)? Or perhaps, should "eternal" here be interpreted "permanent" in both places? Honestly, I think this last argument makes the most sense of the passage: “Then they will go away to permanent punishment, but the righteous to permanent life.” But I wish I had a scholar to discuss it with me.
Edward Fudge, who believes that the unsaved will be punished and then annihilated rather than tortured in Hell forever, gets the first argument. He is a "conditionalist," also known as an "annihilationist." His argument is poorly organized and hard to follow, but also very convincing if you can keep everything in your mind all at once. His main argument is that where the Bible talks of "everlasting" punishment/destruction, it means that the punishment/destruction is permanent and will never be undone.
Robert Peterson then comes in and counters Fudge's argument. Honestly, Peterson does himself a huge disservice by being extremely unlikeable, combative, and hypocritical. (1) He complains that Fudge creates straw man arguments by refuting "traditionalist" arguments that Peterson himself does not hold to. Peterson proceeds to do the same in his own main argument, but more importantly, I found it important that Fudge addressed those arguments, since you do hear them. (2) Peterson complains that when passages of Scripture do not indicate eternal conscious torment, Fudge claims that this must mean there is no eternal conscious torment. Peterson then does the same thing in reverse, stating that passages that say nothing about conditionalism prove his point that there will be eternal conscious torment. (3) Peterson complains that Fudge uses too much Greek, which he says is just there to make Fudge seem authoritative. I found the Greek expositions extremely helpful, since I myself don't know Greek and because English translations often differ a lot from each other. Peterson then turns around and refers several times to his "students" (making sure we know he's a professor) and even appeals to the field of linguistics (decidedly not his expertise). What is the point of that but to make himself look smart? (4) Peterson complains that Fudge appeals to emotion and makes inflammatory arguments. Yes, Fudge is decisive that he is correct, certainly, but what is the sin in that? This is an argument. Peterson then fills his whole main argument with the phrases "Fudge errs" and "Scripture is clear."
Peterson's main argument is far more organized than Fudge's, and is also fairly convincing. However, because he is so organized, Fudge's rebuttal is also nicely organized, and he finally helped me decide that I agree with him. I'm still maybe 75% sure, so not all the way there (Peterson did have some good points).
The final question I'm left with, that I wish the authors had been clearer on, relates to Matthew 25:46: “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.” Peterson makes the good point that "eternal" here should mean the same thing both times. We know that "eternal life" means eternity in heaven - forever and ever alive with God. So what is eternal punishment? Does it mean being consciously tormented forever and ever, which obviously means you are alive (even though only the saved are granted eternal life and "the wages of sin is death")? Or does it mean that the punishment is permanent (in other words, it does not go on forever and ever, even though "eternal" means forever and ever with regard to eternal life)? Or perhaps, should "eternal" here be interpreted "permanent" in both places? Honestly, I think this last argument makes the most sense of the passage: “Then they will go away to permanent punishment, but the righteous to permanent life.” But I wish I had a scholar to discuss it with me.
April 2, 2020
This was an eye opening read for me. Really puts the differing views of hell as it has been defined by the Christian church. I enjoyed learning this topic.
February 4, 2016
In perfect transparency, this book was extremely difficult for me to read. I quite literally renewed it from the library roughly 5 times because I crept along so slowly through it.
In my personal opinion, I found Fudge much easier to read than Peterson, largely due to his clearer writing style. Peterson was difficult to get through for a number of reasons: for one thing, it's just difficult to dwell on the idea of eternal conscious torment (the view Peterson defends) no matter where you land on this issue. It's gruesome and emotionally difficult to read, to stare it in the face and examine it for what it is and all its implications. I found this immensely challenging. I also found Peterson to be far more aggressive in his approach throughout his rebuttal and defense of his view of Traditionalism. He often took to shaming, and what sometimes felt like slandering Fudge's character, which I found petty. Fudge, on the other hand, while defending himself and his view of Conditionalism/Annihilationism, found a way to do so with much more tact and grace.
I wanted to read this book rather than just jumping to Fudge's The Fire That Consumes, because I wanted both perspective since I know my own inclination to just want to side with Conditionalism on the basis that I'm more comfortable with it. However, there is much to be considered, and I am not walking away from this text convinced either way.
In closing, I will say this: Fudge bases his argument on biblical texts almost solely, whereas Peterson heavily relies on a number of the Churches forefathers and creedal confessions. I felt less convinced by Peterson's approach, but he raised enough questions that I would like to other scholars takes.
In my personal opinion, I found Fudge much easier to read than Peterson, largely due to his clearer writing style. Peterson was difficult to get through for a number of reasons: for one thing, it's just difficult to dwell on the idea of eternal conscious torment (the view Peterson defends) no matter where you land on this issue. It's gruesome and emotionally difficult to read, to stare it in the face and examine it for what it is and all its implications. I found this immensely challenging. I also found Peterson to be far more aggressive in his approach throughout his rebuttal and defense of his view of Traditionalism. He often took to shaming, and what sometimes felt like slandering Fudge's character, which I found petty. Fudge, on the other hand, while defending himself and his view of Conditionalism/Annihilationism, found a way to do so with much more tact and grace.
I wanted to read this book rather than just jumping to Fudge's The Fire That Consumes, because I wanted both perspective since I know my own inclination to just want to side with Conditionalism on the basis that I'm more comfortable with it. However, there is much to be considered, and I am not walking away from this text convinced either way.
In closing, I will say this: Fudge bases his argument on biblical texts almost solely, whereas Peterson heavily relies on a number of the Churches forefathers and creedal confessions. I felt less convinced by Peterson's approach, but he raised enough questions that I would like to other scholars takes.
June 22, 2014
Quite disappointing. What Fudge had to say was interesting, especially his suggestion that when the Bible uses the terms 'die', 'perish' and 'destroy', it means precisely that. However, I personally found his explanations of other passages that more explicitly refer to eternal punishment unconvincing. For his part, Peterson was thoroughly disappointing. To begin with, he rooted a substantial portion of his thesis in the tradition if the Church, which is always unattractive from a Protestant. Then, he seemed more concerned with critiquing Fudge's scholarship than explaining his own ideas. As a result, he took so many shortcuts that his own argumentation was surprisingly shallow.
June 7, 2015
Helpful to a point. I think having two biblical scholars or two systematic theologians duke it out would be more advantageous in the future, as both gentlemen seem to speak and argue past each other. Fudge has, I think, shown fairly clearly that the traditional doctrine of eternal torment is quite lacking, and annihilationism (also called conditionalism or conditional immortality) has the upper hand exegetically. However, from a systematics standpoint (which is where many people begin), conditionalism is seen as lacking.
Plus. Peterson is rather condescending and rude in this book, so points off for not being respectful.
Plus. Peterson is rather condescending and rude in this book, so points off for not being respectful.
September 7, 2008
I'm not sure I finished this, because I think I was too scared to read Peterson's pro-eternal-punishment Hell position. I mostly just wanted more convincing that, if Hell had to exist, based upon my limited Biblical understanding, at least it could be conditional! Which argument was somewhat, I'm emphasizing somewhat, convincing.
June 10, 2013
A bit wordy. Good to read and then go back and study the scriptures for yourself.
December 6, 2016
Love the concept and format of the book. Both authors did a great job presenting their views in a clear and understandable fashion. Great place to start on this particular doctrine.
Displaying 1 - 18 of 18 reviews