What do you think?
Hell Yes / Hell No
This compelling and controversial book strikes at the heart of Christian theology and Christianity itself. It presents a balanced and scholarly re-exploration of "one of Christianity's most offensive doctrines"-Hell and the greater issue of the extent of God's grace (mercy, love, compassion, justice) and wrath in the eternal, afterlife destiny for all people. Inside, conflicting views are re-evaluated, their strengths and weaknesses re-assessed, and all the demands of Scripture are reconciled into one coherent and consistent synthesized view. The author further suggests that our limited earthly view has been the problem, re-discovers the ultimate mystery of God's expressed desire, will, and purpose, and transcends troubling traditions as never before. Bottom line is, God's plan of salvation and condemnation may be far different and greater than we've been led to believe. In a clear and straightforward manner, this book lays out the historical and scriptural evidence as never before.
- GenresTheology
433 pages, Kindle Edition
First published September 1, 2011
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews
August 28, 2014
There are a lot of good books out there discussing this "hot topic." However, I chose this book for it's promised dialectical nature and it did not disappoint. Noe states it several times in the book and I think is correct when he says there hasn't been any other attempt similar to the one he makes in this book to engage in a comprehensive, though not exhaustive (but nearly), study of the doctrine of hell.
What I really appreciate about Noe, at the very least, is his attitude of humility as he approaches the topic. He recognizes how emotional arguments on hell and the afterlife tend to get and simply seeks to lay out the best of the traditional view's arguments and the best of the alternative view's arguments and invites you to decide who's arguments seem stronger. In the latter end of the book he also offers his own synthesizing work, though he refreshingly admits that just because he can synthesize the various scriptural demands into a coherent view, doesn't necessarily make it correct. And again, he invites you to decide for yourself. At the very least, this is a very refreshing attitude to witness and one which more believers could benefit from rather than the fears and uninformed assumptions that often come whenever anyone begins to reexamine the traditional view of hell.
In particular, I enjoyed the historical overview of how our "traditional" view of hell came about regarding Augustine and how he contrasted with the Greek fathers.
And don't get me wrong, this book is very exegetical. However, I did feel a little underwhelmed at certain points on the exegesis in it.
Another thing to Noe's credit is the breadth of sources he uses and draws from. It's quite impressive and makes for the dialectical nature of the book. He draws from and introduces you to all different kinds of authors with their opposing views and nuances within those.
The strength of the book is Noe's humility in approaching the topic combined with the vast range of references and voices he brings into the conversation.
I do kind of doubt that the type of person who this book would appeal to would probably agree completely with his synthesis at the end of the book. For instance, personally, I'm not totally sure about rewards theology and perceived that because of his particular synthesis he was somewhat forced into it in order to bolster his proposed view. And I did feel like the level of exegesis drops off a little, more to the proof-texting side, when he finally comes around to making a stab at a synthesis. For instance, I would feel better about rewards theology if he did a similar point and counterpoint exploration style with it like he does with the main topics in the book. Again, the strength of the book is Noe's humility and how he is able to introduce you to the strongest arguments and thoughts of opposing viewpoints. To Noe's credit, he does warn the reader that the exegesis in certain sections of the book will seem too rigorous to some readers and too cursory to others.
Most who will read this book will be surprised to recognize the strengths of alternative views to the traditional view of hell. This kind of education is really healthy I think. And at the end of the book, it is hard not to adopt a similar attitude of humility regarding the topic of hell when you've been exposed to the range of viewpoints and arguments for and against them. That is probably the best outcome as Christians tend to be too jumpy regarding the particular topic of hell - thinking that if you start studying it or asking questions about it, you're basically toying with atheism. At the end, you realize that it is a complex topic and there are legitimate strengths and weaknesses of all the views - especially because we're trying to look into a mystery as Paul says at the end of Romans 11 and Noe often reminds. Noe does provide a synthesis of the views though and explains how he tends to lean. However, he is also clear in communicating that there is a mystery about it all and scripture only gives us so much insight to the counsel of God regarding the afterlife and what will happen to the wicked. But many great questions are raised in the complexity of the dialog that will make you think.
The major take away from the book is the humility that rightfully follows an exposure to the complexity of a topic. When a person does not understand the complexity and various views on any one topic, it is easy for them to dogmatize on it and hatefully dismiss those who disagree with them. But if you do understand the legitimate complexities of the topic, you can more easily come along side people in mutual wonder, curiosity and conversation and ask, like Noe frequently does, what do you think? Hell yes? Or hell no?
What I really appreciate about Noe, at the very least, is his attitude of humility as he approaches the topic. He recognizes how emotional arguments on hell and the afterlife tend to get and simply seeks to lay out the best of the traditional view's arguments and the best of the alternative view's arguments and invites you to decide who's arguments seem stronger. In the latter end of the book he also offers his own synthesizing work, though he refreshingly admits that just because he can synthesize the various scriptural demands into a coherent view, doesn't necessarily make it correct. And again, he invites you to decide for yourself. At the very least, this is a very refreshing attitude to witness and one which more believers could benefit from rather than the fears and uninformed assumptions that often come whenever anyone begins to reexamine the traditional view of hell.
In particular, I enjoyed the historical overview of how our "traditional" view of hell came about regarding Augustine and how he contrasted with the Greek fathers.
And don't get me wrong, this book is very exegetical. However, I did feel a little underwhelmed at certain points on the exegesis in it.
Another thing to Noe's credit is the breadth of sources he uses and draws from. It's quite impressive and makes for the dialectical nature of the book. He draws from and introduces you to all different kinds of authors with their opposing views and nuances within those.
The strength of the book is Noe's humility in approaching the topic combined with the vast range of references and voices he brings into the conversation.
I do kind of doubt that the type of person who this book would appeal to would probably agree completely with his synthesis at the end of the book. For instance, personally, I'm not totally sure about rewards theology and perceived that because of his particular synthesis he was somewhat forced into it in order to bolster his proposed view. And I did feel like the level of exegesis drops off a little, more to the proof-texting side, when he finally comes around to making a stab at a synthesis. For instance, I would feel better about rewards theology if he did a similar point and counterpoint exploration style with it like he does with the main topics in the book. Again, the strength of the book is Noe's humility and how he is able to introduce you to the strongest arguments and thoughts of opposing viewpoints. To Noe's credit, he does warn the reader that the exegesis in certain sections of the book will seem too rigorous to some readers and too cursory to others.
Most who will read this book will be surprised to recognize the strengths of alternative views to the traditional view of hell. This kind of education is really healthy I think. And at the end of the book, it is hard not to adopt a similar attitude of humility regarding the topic of hell when you've been exposed to the range of viewpoints and arguments for and against them. That is probably the best outcome as Christians tend to be too jumpy regarding the particular topic of hell - thinking that if you start studying it or asking questions about it, you're basically toying with atheism. At the end, you realize that it is a complex topic and there are legitimate strengths and weaknesses of all the views - especially because we're trying to look into a mystery as Paul says at the end of Romans 11 and Noe often reminds. Noe does provide a synthesis of the views though and explains how he tends to lean. However, he is also clear in communicating that there is a mystery about it all and scripture only gives us so much insight to the counsel of God regarding the afterlife and what will happen to the wicked. But many great questions are raised in the complexity of the dialog that will make you think.
The major take away from the book is the humility that rightfully follows an exposure to the complexity of a topic. When a person does not understand the complexity and various views on any one topic, it is easy for them to dogmatize on it and hatefully dismiss those who disagree with them. But if you do understand the legitimate complexities of the topic, you can more easily come along side people in mutual wonder, curiosity and conversation and ask, like Noe frequently does, what do you think? Hell yes? Or hell no?
August 24, 2020
The first four chapters are what I thought the whole book would be about ("hell") and I wasn't disappointed - those chapters are worth getting the book.
However, much of the rest of it is defending universalism I just can't get on board there.
However, much of the rest of it is defending universalism I just can't get on board there.
October 12, 2011
Is God really going to banish the majority of his creation to eternal torment? Well, to start with, what and where is this eternal torment? Noe starts his in-depth study by discussing four words in the Bible that have been translated in different versions of the Bible as “hell.” These four words are Gehenna (the garbage dump outside Jerusalem, where the fire burns non-stop), Sheol (the realm of the dead as they await resurrection, primarily in the Old Testament), Hades (which Noe labels as the Greek equivalent of Sheol), and Tartarus (referenced only in 2 Peter as a place of banishment for sinful angels.) This mismatch of meanings hardly lends strength to the doctrine of eternal damnation. Is today’s understanding of hell merely a Christian invention?
Christian Universalists have a hard time believing a God of Love could be so cruel as to torture anyone for an eternity. Thankfully, a number of verses in the Bible give a different picture; a picture of universal acceptance into heaven. Noe provides a very impressive, scriptural study of both sides of the argument. Recognizing that each side has an exhaustive battery of “proof verses,” and that scripture itself reminds us we are delving in a great mystery (see Romans 11:33-36), he cautions us against disregarding contrary opinions, and suggests we proceed with a high degree of humility.
While Mr. Noe and I will never be exactly on the same page (he "is not and has never been a liberal Christian" while I am precisely that), I am awed by his research. I can respect Noe's Sola Scriptura stance so long as he takes a good, hard, scholarly look at what the scriptures really say (and do not say!), and this he has done. The key word in this argument, undoubtedly, is the word “all.” When the Bible says, “all,” does it really mean all?
Christ gave himself a ransom for all men.
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
The examples of universal language in the scripture are numerous. Underlining this topic is one all-important question: Why did Jesus die? Especially in the minds of Universalists, who posit that everybody eventually winds up in heaven anyway. You may begin to think about the redemptive power of the Cross a little differently after this study with Noe. Consider, for example, Paul’s comparison of Adam to Christ: “So it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.” Christian Universalists now charge, “if people are burning in hell, Adam did not foreshadow Christ, he eclipsed Him … religion makes Adam more powerful than Christ.”
Noe proposes a reevaluation of the texts, and mediates a sort of reasonable vote on various topics. Perhaps by tallying up the strengths of the Universalist texts against the strength of the Exclusivist texts—bearing in mind what we have learned about the Greek words and meanings behind what has often been translated as hell—we can reach a conclusion.
It's no slam dunk. In fact, the voting results in a push, until Noe introduces a tie-breaker topic titled God's Revealed Character and Nature. Under this topic, he lobbies for a kind and loving God, based on the weight of scripture that describes God as someone who would never banish anyone to eternal torment. The scales are thus tipped in favor of Universalism ... as we guessed all along.
Engaging, interesting, intelligent, thought-provoking, this is a book every Christian should read. But I cannot leave this topic without reminding you of Noe’s beginning assumption, a trust that scriptures are divinely inspired and internally consistent. This is me talking from here on; not Noe.
I can respect Noe’s desire to give equal weight to all scripture, but this is the very reason these arguments crop up. It’s not that the scriptures are ambiguous—common sense can usually determine what the author has in mind to say—it’s that in places they are flat-out contradictory. This study highlights this problem very well.
The majority of the Universalist texts derive from Pauline writings. The original Paul, not later pseudo-Pauling writings such as II Thessalonians. Paul, I confess, may have been a Universalist—though, whether in his beliefs or in his dream for mankind I cannot tell. Matthew, with his repeated divisions and images of punishment and gnashing of teeth, is most certainly an Exclusivist … and a terrifying one, at that.
So if we are to take a vote to decide whether the doctrine of Exclusivity or the doctrine of Universality is correct, here is how I think we should be voting, recognizing that different writers held different opinions:
Is Paul right or wrong?
Is Matthew right or wrong?
Is Hebrews right or wrong?
Is James right or wrong?
Or do we scrap them all, and go with Revelation’s afterlife vision of a bodily resurrection and a kingdom established on the earth?
Regardless of my differences with Noe, this is a study that’s worth the effort, and Noe tackles it in fair and scholarly fashion. Five stars, for sure.
Christian Universalists have a hard time believing a God of Love could be so cruel as to torture anyone for an eternity. Thankfully, a number of verses in the Bible give a different picture; a picture of universal acceptance into heaven. Noe provides a very impressive, scriptural study of both sides of the argument. Recognizing that each side has an exhaustive battery of “proof verses,” and that scripture itself reminds us we are delving in a great mystery (see Romans 11:33-36), he cautions us against disregarding contrary opinions, and suggests we proceed with a high degree of humility.
While Mr. Noe and I will never be exactly on the same page (he "is not and has never been a liberal Christian" while I am precisely that), I am awed by his research. I can respect Noe's Sola Scriptura stance so long as he takes a good, hard, scholarly look at what the scriptures really say (and do not say!), and this he has done. The key word in this argument, undoubtedly, is the word “all.” When the Bible says, “all,” does it really mean all?
Christ gave himself a ransom for all men.
For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men.
In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people.
I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.
The examples of universal language in the scripture are numerous. Underlining this topic is one all-important question: Why did Jesus die? Especially in the minds of Universalists, who posit that everybody eventually winds up in heaven anyway. You may begin to think about the redemptive power of the Cross a little differently after this study with Noe. Consider, for example, Paul’s comparison of Adam to Christ: “So it is written, ‘The first man Adam became a living being’; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.” Christian Universalists now charge, “if people are burning in hell, Adam did not foreshadow Christ, he eclipsed Him … religion makes Adam more powerful than Christ.”
Noe proposes a reevaluation of the texts, and mediates a sort of reasonable vote on various topics. Perhaps by tallying up the strengths of the Universalist texts against the strength of the Exclusivist texts—bearing in mind what we have learned about the Greek words and meanings behind what has often been translated as hell—we can reach a conclusion.
It's no slam dunk. In fact, the voting results in a push, until Noe introduces a tie-breaker topic titled God's Revealed Character and Nature. Under this topic, he lobbies for a kind and loving God, based on the weight of scripture that describes God as someone who would never banish anyone to eternal torment. The scales are thus tipped in favor of Universalism ... as we guessed all along.
Engaging, interesting, intelligent, thought-provoking, this is a book every Christian should read. But I cannot leave this topic without reminding you of Noe’s beginning assumption, a trust that scriptures are divinely inspired and internally consistent. This is me talking from here on; not Noe.
I can respect Noe’s desire to give equal weight to all scripture, but this is the very reason these arguments crop up. It’s not that the scriptures are ambiguous—common sense can usually determine what the author has in mind to say—it’s that in places they are flat-out contradictory. This study highlights this problem very well.
The majority of the Universalist texts derive from Pauline writings. The original Paul, not later pseudo-Pauling writings such as II Thessalonians. Paul, I confess, may have been a Universalist—though, whether in his beliefs or in his dream for mankind I cannot tell. Matthew, with his repeated divisions and images of punishment and gnashing of teeth, is most certainly an Exclusivist … and a terrifying one, at that.
So if we are to take a vote to decide whether the doctrine of Exclusivity or the doctrine of Universality is correct, here is how I think we should be voting, recognizing that different writers held different opinions:
Is Paul right or wrong?
Is Matthew right or wrong?
Is Hebrews right or wrong?
Is James right or wrong?
Or do we scrap them all, and go with Revelation’s afterlife vision of a bodily resurrection and a kingdom established on the earth?
Regardless of my differences with Noe, this is a study that’s worth the effort, and Noe tackles it in fair and scholarly fashion. Five stars, for sure.
Displaying 1 - 3 of 3 reviews