Four Views on Hell

Counterpoints

by Stanley N. Gundry (Editor), William V. Crockett (Editor), Zachary J. Hayes

Recent years have seen much controversy regarding a unified Christian doctrine of hell: Do we go to heaven or hell when we die Or do we cease to exist Are believers and unbelievers ultimately saved by grace in the end

By focusing on recent theological arguments, Four Views on Hell: Second Edition highlights why the church still needs to wrestle with the doctrine of hell.

In the fair-minded and engaging Counterpoints format, four leading scholars introduce us to the current views on eternal judgment, with particular attention given to the new voices that have entered the debate.

Contributors and views include:


Denny Burk – representing a principle of Eternal Conscious Torment
John Stackhouse – representing a principle of Annihilationism (Conditional Immortality)
Robin Parry – representing a principle of Universalism (Ultimate Reconciliation)
Jerry Walls – representing a principle of Purgatory
Preston Sprinkle concludes the discussion by evaluating each view, noting significant points of exchange between the essayists. The interactive nature of the volume allows the reader to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of each view and come to an informed conclusion.

BONUS CONTENT: Includes entire first edition of Four Views on Hell to help readers grasp the history of the discussion and how it has developed over the last twenty years.

Genres: Theology, Christian, Religion, Nonfiction, Christianity, Biblical Studies, Faith

192 pages, Paperback

First published December 24, 1996

Reviews

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

How could a good God torture people in hell for all eternity?

I grew up with the simple belief that hell was real and lasted forever. Eventually, when I started to think about it, in the midst of questioning lots of beliefs I had been taught, I realized that unending painful punishment seems unjust. What could a finite human possibly do to deserve such a fate? In the midst of thinking about that, I read the Four Views on Hell: First Edition. This book was a huge step for me in realizing that the case from the Bible for such a belief is actually quite flimsy. The defender of the annhilation view, that people in hell cease to exist, made a case that convinced me.

This second edition intrigued me because, unlike the first, in included a chapter on universalism. Since questions about hell still come up often, I thought I'd check out how this debate goes. The first chapter is by Denny Burk, defending the traditional view that humans in hell are there forever and their suffering never ceases. Reading it, I was reaffirmed in my conclusion this is definitely not a true reflection of scripture. Burk argues that even the smallest sin against an infinite God deserves unending punishment. Unfortunately, this is a philosophical idea that began with Anselm in the 1000s and is rooted in medieval feudal thought. Such an assumption is not found in scripture, which is especially unfortunate for Burk who claims a conservative viewpoint that solely rests in scripture. Most of the actual scripture he cites does not support his view, once the assumptions brought into scripture are taken away (the fire of God's punishment may last forever, but fire tends to destroy things and thus this is no evidence people exist in the fire forever). Burk has to make the horrific claim that God actively keeps people in alive (i.e. ensures the fire does not burn them down to nothing) so they can be forever tortured.

The second chapter, by John Stackhouse, argues for annhilationism. He calls it terminal punishment. Basically, evil people go to hell where they are punished for their sins. These punishments last different amounts of time, depending how sinful the people were, then those people cease to exist. Just based on piling up the most scriptures, this argument is strong. When we allow words like destroy, perish and fire to mean what they mean then it seems to be that if people are destroyed in fire, then they no longer exist. Of course, the problem for Stackhouse, and for a book like this and an issue like this, is that there are scriptures that do not seem to teach this. Burk has a view, and the universalist view has a surprising amount.

To me, this kind of begs the question of the entire endeavor - why should we expect the Bible to tell us exactly how the afterlife works? More on that below.

Third, Robin Pary argues for universalism. He affirms Jesus is the only way to God, so his is not a belief that all paths get you there. But he trusts that Jesus will keep reaching out to people until all people freely choose to love in return. Parry's argument rests more on a telling of a grand narrative than any one verse - God created all people, all people sin and all people will be saved. There are hints in some scriptures, with parallels between "all" being sinful and "all" being saved, so all must mean the same in both. Further, Parry asks incisive questions, showing that his view rests more on a broad-brush picture of God. If we see God becoming human in Jesus and not even letting the fact that humans executed God on the cross stop God's love for us, then why should our death stop God's love for us? The best question Parry brings up is the reality that people reject God for lots of reasons. Should people suffer in hell because they rejected a poor picture of God? What if people were given the true picture of who God is?

Parry argues that, given this true picture, eventually alll people choose God. Jerry Walls is not so optimistic. He argues for a purgatory view of hell. His is not the same as Catholic purgatory, instead Walls sees hell as lasting forever (like Burk) but people can choose to come to faith after death (like Parry) though not all will choose this, some will forever choose away from God (unlike Parry). Walls would point to CS Lewis' idea that the door of hell is closed from the inside - God does not send people there, people choose it themselves.

Overall, this book kind of leaves me wondering...how much can we know? Apart from Burk, I think the other three writers make strong cases. They are all valid for Christians. Speaking of that, Stackhouse came across arrogant in his critique of Parry as he kept trumping his Orthodoxy and implying Parry's was not an "orthodox" (within the boundaries of Christian belief) idea. Unfortunately for Stackhouse, some of the very Christians who defined orthodoxy, like Gregory of Nyssa, agree with Parry. So its a valid view. This is one of those issues Christians have always differed on and will always differ on, which means humility is even more vital.

The last time I read this book, I walked away convinced of the annihilation view. This time, I walk away simply saying we can't know. I'm more cynical about our possibility to know such things. What happens after death is a mystery. I think the most we can say for sure is we meet God - God as a relational love of Father, Son and Spirit. This Trinitarian God of love is also a consuming fire. When you meet God and your life is held up to the flames, what is left? Stackhouse would argue, for some people, nothing is left. Parry is hopeful that the smallest bit of good can survive and be redeemed. Walls reminds us that even we who think we are good still have a good bt that needs to be burned away. What about hell? If God floods all existence with God's presence (a presence which is Love, at its core) then is hell just the experience of people who hate not just God but all good things rooted in God - love, light, justice, peace? Can there be a place separated from God when God is all in all?

In my life right now, I am not only uncertain we can know these things, but I am pretty sure they are not the point. The Bible does not exist to give us much knowledge about what happens after death. Instead, the Bible exists to tell us who God is and what God is doing, culminating in the resurrection of Jesus. This shows God is creating a good world, a world as it always intended to be. Do you want to be a part of it? Do you want to contribute to it? What are you doing now? I think those sorts of questions are much more central to the story of God than how exactly the afterlife works.

Overall, I'd say if you're interested in the subject, this is a worthy book to read. If you only know the traditional view, be prepared to learn there are other views that make a lot more sense of both tbe Bible and theological reflection. But if you want to discover which view wins...well, you'll be disappointed. No one view wins. In the end, God wins. And since God is love, then Love Wins (nod to Rob Bell, sorry, couldn't resist).

[Kim · Rating 3 out of 5]

I don't know. Not long ago I got into a conversation with a man who believes in the conditional view of hell. Never having heard of it before I found it fascinating. A few days later I began talking to my Pastor about it and before I knew it I had this book in my hands. My Pastor wanted me to see the different ideas people have of what hell is going to be like. As I said at the beginning, I just don't know. And now I've read the book. I've made it through the four gates of hell, from the literal understanding of hell, then to the metaphorical view, the next gate took me into the purgatory view, by far the strangest in my opinion, finally to the annihilation view. I made it through all the gates of hell. I learned that if God gives me a vote on it, I hope hell will be either the purgatory or annihilation view, there are people I really don't want spending eternity in hell, and I'm afraid they may do just that. Other than that I've learned that I don't know what hell will be like. I think that last gate took me right back to the beginning and I'drather not go through it all again. If I do enter it again, I'm taking notes this time, there are a few things I just don't know, maybe it'sbetter that way.

[Joseph · Rating 3 out of 5]

Although it bears the same name and is produced by the same publisher as the previous Four Views on Hell book, this new edition is largely distinct. It has an editor, new contributors, and now includes universalism among the four views (having consolidated the “literal” and “metaphorical” views into one eternal torment view of hell).
So you know where I stand, I hold the view that is called “terminal punishment” and argued for by Dr. John Stackhouse.

Denny Burk - Traditionalism/Eternal Torment:
Dr. Burk presents the majority Christian view that hell is a place of eternal conscious punishment for all who go there. The view is often referred to as "traditionalism" because it has been the dominant view in historical Christianity.

His scriptural arguments are standard. He points to passages such as Mark 9:48 and Matthew 25:46 which have been successfully rebutted over and over and over again in conditionalist (i.e. terminal punishment) literature.

His philosophical and theological arguments relied primarily on two ideas:

1. Sin against an infinite God demands infinite punishment (which requires eternal conscious punishment).
2. God is love but also wrath, and God is glorified in punishing sin.

There's nothing new or all that noteworthy.

John Stackhouse - Terminal Punishment:
Dr. Stackhouse argues for a view he calls "terminal punishment." The view, also called conditional immortality or annihilationism, is the view that the unsaved will be fully killed off/destroyed and not live for eternity in any sense.

Stackhouse's arguments were quite interesting. He focused a lot on larger theological arguments than specific texts of the Bible. This makes for a potentially fascinating read, but I don't know how convincing it would be to many who don't already hold his view.

I also think it is incorrect to frame the punishment for sin the way he does. He puts great emphasis on the punishment for sin being torment before final death, and not so much on the death itself. However, Romans 6:23 says that the death itself is the wages of sin, the just deserts, and not something that comes after. Traditionalists also have raised the question before how if the punishment for sin is completed in all the suffering prior to the second death, why the unsaved would then be killed? The answer is that the death itself is part of the punishment, and until they are destroyed, they have not been fully punished for their sins. But the way Stackhouse presents it makes this less than clear.

Robin Parry - Universalism:
A new addition to this new edition of Four Views on Hell is a chapter on universalism, the belief that everyone will one day be saved and have eternal life with God.

Although I do not agree with Parry's conclusions, he did make a surprisingly good case for his view. He laid out clearly the way he approaches scripture, what the scriptures say on the matter, and how he believes universalism fits best with the greater doctrines of God, God's love, and the like. For many evangelical Christians, this may be the most interesting and fascinating chapter to read because it does present universalism in a manner that is largely consistent with evangelical Christianity.

Ultimately, it did not change my mind or even get me reconsidering much, as there are still weaknesses in the case for universalism and against terminal punishment that Parry was not able to overcome. But it does at least change the dynamic of how universalism can be said to fit into conservative, evangelical Christianity.

Jerry Walls -Purgatory:
In this chapter, Dr. Walls argues for the doctrine of purgatory. However, the form of purgatory he puts forth differs substantially from the traditional Roman Catholic view that purgatory is a place where God inflicts wrath on people to punish them for their sins, albeit temporarily. Walls instead argues for a more Protestant-friendly version where no debt for sin is being paid, God's wrath needs no further satisfaction (Jesus paid it all), but rather, people go there strictly to be sanctified and purified.

Although Walls's view solves many of the major problems with the traditional, Roman Catholic view, his argument is not convincing. For starters, much of his argument consisted of C.S. Lewis quotes, some with little further explanation. Barely any attempt at a scriptural case was made, and the small handful of passages cited were only cited to make a vague point that he would then connect to the doctrine. Even Walls doesn't go as far as to say they actually teach any sort of purgatory. They simply don't. The closest to Wall's arguing that a passage actually does speak of purgatory was 1 Corinthians 3:10-15. One of Denny Burke's shining moments was in his rebuttal where he took down Wall's attempt to argue that 1 Corinthians 3:10-15 can reasonably be read as speaking of purgatory. It can't, and any Protestant should know better. Unlike Roman Catholics, we don't read the Bible in order to find something that maybe sounds sorta like our doctrines and call it a biblical teaching; we read the Bible to find out what it teaches and adjust our other doctrines accordingly.

I also still do not understand why a chapter on purgatory is in this book (or in the previous version). Purgatory isn't hell. It is a place where saved people go before they are ready for heaven. Walls doesn't waver from that definition; he is not a universalist who is arguing that hell itself is purgatorial and gets everyone ready for heaven. Therefore, I don't see how it can even be called a view on hell in the first place.

Rebuttals:
At the end of each chapter, the other three contributors are given five pages or so to respond to the case made in the chapter.

As noted previously, Denny Burk did a good job of rebutting the case for a more Protestant-friendly purgatory by rebutting Jerry Wall's attempt at a scriptural case. He and Robin Parry also did well in pointing out passages such as 1 Corinthians 15:52 which seem directly contradict the idea that a person must go through an extended period of purification in the next life to be ready for the Kingdom of God. Walls didn't even mention such passages.

I found Robin Parry's rebuttals against Denny Burk's case powerful as well. Parry focused primarily on rebutting the underlying theological and philosophical arguments Burk made for eternal torment, and I thought did a good job of succinctly pointing to their weaknesses.

The worst by far was Jerry Walls's rebuttal to John Stackhouse's case for terminal punishment. Walls, although he argues in this book for purgatory (which isn't even a view of hell in the first place), does believe that hell is a place of eternal torment. For this reason, he argues that the case for terminal punishment is weak because the church overwhelmingly (though not unanimously) has held to eternal torment.

However, as Walls also puts forth in the book, he also believes that anyone in hell can leave any time if they choose to, and some will. He argues that God holds His hands out for all eternity for those in hell to come to their senses. There is nothing traditional about that view. That view completely flies in the face of what traditionalists have believed throughout the history of the church, that hell was a place of real pain and torture (usually in literal fire) and God's active vengeance that no one had any hope of ever escaping from, even through death, for ever and ever. That is such a radical departure from the historically dominant view that it is frankly absurd that Walls would hold such a view and yet, at the same time, appeal to church history against another view.

An aside, there have been both conditionalists and universalists sprinkled throughout church history, especially in the first few centuries, so it is not as though any of the three views (traditionalism, terminal punishment, and universalism), broadly speaking, are totally novel from a historical standpoint.

Concluding Chapter
Preston Sprinkle, the editor of this volume, gave a concluding chapter where he summarized and briefly analyzed each contributor's chapters and gave final thoughts on how to move the discussion forward. What one thinks of his chapter will depend in part on which view of hell you hold. Sprinkle holds, at least loosely, to John Stackhouse's terminal punishment view, and it shows. For what it's worth, I believe in three pages he did a better job of dismantling Denny Burk's attempt at a scriptural case for eternal torment than did the rest of the contributors combined. His review of Stackhouse's chapter was mostly positive, though like me he would have liked more exegesis of the relevant texts. He found Parry's chapter compelling though not convincing, and wasn't sold on Wall's attempt at a case for purgatory.

Sprinkle concluded by pointing to areas where he think further scholarship is needed, such as in properly deciphering the meaning of the Greek aionios and other words form the aion word group, which are typically rendered as "eternal" and the like.

My Concluding Thoughts
This book is good and may be worth checking out if you are really interested in the topic. No one person knocks it out of the park (although I may daresay Robin Parry probably did the best overall), but if you are interested in hell, it is worth reading as one resource of many.

I also found there to be more of a conversational tone than in the previous version, which I thought was fitting. I do not know if the contributors all know each other personally, but I do know some of them have had some interaction in the past (such as Jerry Walls and Robin Parry as plenary speakers and panel members at the 2015 Rethinking Hell conference at Fuller Theological Seminary). It showed in the discussion. You didn't get the sense that they were four distinct individuals and adversaries who coldly knew of each other only in terms of their chapter. I actually appreciate this fact in a book such as this. It is important to remember that the other contributors are people and fellow believers, not just (sometimes bad) arguments.

[Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

Picked this up used, just in time for the second edition.

The four essays I thought were really good.

Walvoord I found most frustrating. Frankly his mentality is of the older conservative evangelical approach that sounds idiotic now. It is not because I think eternal conscious torment cannot be defended on biblical grounds, it is rather because he is so convinced that his way is the only way to see the Bible that he labels all the other positions unbiblical and dismisses them without much interaction. His critiques are essentially that we have an inerrant Bible (that assumes a lot), which obviously means it must be literal in what it says (that assumes a lot as well), and what he thinks it says must be infallible (that assumes even more!), therefore, the other interpretations, that is metaphorical or describe something different, even thought they cite Scripture, must be wrong. His position assumes alot and we all know what they say about assuming too much, eh?

Crockett's essay was excellent in showing that eschatological imagery is metaphorical through and through. It is not that heaven or hell are not real, it is rather that they are communicated using images from Israel and the Church's experience, which to me just makes sense. Jesus taught using the props of history and nature. Hell (and heaven) is an indescribable reality, that is described in our language, using analogies we would understand. Where Crockett does south for me is that he admits the language is hyberbolic, but then rather uncritically affirms only eternal conscious torment is correct. I think the next two essays right call the exclusivity of that assertion into question.

Hayes properly shows that there is a tradition in Christian thought, in the Bible and church tradition, that sees the fire judgment as a purifying, purgatorial, healing fire. The judgment of God is a "refiner's fire" and 1 Cor. 3:15 says that some will be saved on the final day, "only as through fire." For me, the question is now, who is this reserved for? He seems to see this refining fire reserved for Christians that have impure works that in God's mercy he will purge from them in the final day before they enter the new Jerusalem. Yet, given a book like Brad Jersak's book, Her Gates Will Never Be Shut, it seems like this cleansing judgment fire is applicable to non-believers as well, if only as one possibility among others.

Finally, Pinnock's defense of the logic and exegesis of conditional immortality and annihilation was well done. That man is a hero of mine for his courageous honesty and theological pilgrimage. Here is one of those essays that got him in a lot of trouble, but I think he is right: a lot of passages speak about judgment as the person perishing (his second point is that immortality seems to be conditional, which he argues well too). Now, I will say that I thought his treatment of the classic eternal conscious torment texts was a bit of a ball drop, so my respect for this man, I'll confess, stops there.

My own stab at the doctrine of hell is that Scripture speaks in a polyphony of ways about the final judgment. It seems that the authors of Scripture were not systematic, restricting themselves to one way. They were not concrete either, and thus, used rich metaphor and hyperbolic that was different from context to context. They spoke of hell as eternal punishment, annihilation, and restorative fire for different purposes. To the hardhearted, an eternal punishment is threatened (Matt. 25), but that is a possibility, invoked in order to cause people to repent and change. Other ways speak about it as death, perishing, and annihilation, which is an appropriate way to think about punishment for people who are not thoroughly evil, but carelessly neglect to trust Christ's eternal life. Still, if God promises the "restoration of all things" or that "all will live in Christ" or "Christ will draw all people to himself" a Christian should every much have the hope in prayer that God may save all people (and this is different from heretical universalism that flatly asserts all will be saved to the neglect of faith, evangelization, and obedience).

Whatever the image, the over all purpose of all inspired Scripture is to bring people to salvation in Christ and train them in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). I think you can take any image of hell, whether eternal conscious torment or universalism, and make it into something that can pull people away from Christ, the church, and the way of faith. Here the "mode" of a doctrine is important. Using hell to scare well-intentioned agnostics into believing is not a good idea. Threatening hell against one's enemies neglects that Jesus more often than not turns hell-judgment on his own hypocritical people. Meanwhile, falling into a loosey-goosey universalism will breed apathy ("God will take care of it in the end, so don't bother"), undermining faith and obedience in Christ. This form cannot denounce the true evil with the sanctified ire of the prophets. To those that know the mortal consequences of their actions and choose depraved acts against others, the only way to talk about that is to talk about eternal consequences. Ironically, holding to a non-judgmental God that will save all inherently good humans is an idol that will shatter into a despair that will bitterly think humans do deserve to burn eternally. It is only through recognizing with the sense that we could be punished by a holy God that we can draw close to Christ as the clearer picture of who God is. Thus, wisdom begins with the fear of the lord, but perfect love casts out fear.

[Mlien · Rating 3 out of 5]

I grew up in a church where ‘hell’ was not something that was talked about a lot. For me it felt like an awkward part of Christianity, whereof nobody exactly knew what to say about it. The traditional view on hell feels so far away from the loving God, whereof my church actually did love to talk about.

Despite this upbringing, hell was something that worried me when I was a kid and a young teenager. The devil and demons were something that did scare me for sure (even though they were also barely mentioned in church and sometimes they were mentioned as symbols instead of being real ‘things’, but they were mentioned more than hell). I as well remember being quite upset ( I was about seven years old) after a little girl told me in a playground that I was going to hell because I was wearing trousers instead of a skirt. I also once got a little graphic novel from a so called street evangelist (I must’ve been fourteen years old) that I threw it away immediately at home, but some of the pictures non the less found a way into my brain. I can still remember the scared faces of the people that were thrown into the flames. So yeah, hell worried me after that. couldn’t understand how a loving God could send people to a place of torment.

It was actually C.S. Lewis with his Narnia-books who helped me shift my thinking on this subject. Hell in his books (see also his The Screwtape Letters, which is actually a book with humor about the nature of good and evil) is not so much about believing or not believing, but more the contradiction of heaven. Heaven is described of a place full of life, risks, reality, forgiving and transforming (which can be difficult sometimes), but also because of that full of beauty, empathy, real love, life and kindness, where as hell is a place of egoism, refusal of self reflection, jealousy, bitterness and idleness. Every person in life, in his own circumstances, makes choices and with every choice (particularly in difficult circumstances) you grow closer to either ‘hell’ or ‘heaven’. Especially in his last Narnia Book: The Last Battle, C.S. Lewis shows that heaven and hell it is not as simple as a parting between believers and non-believers. Like a dutch singer and poet Rikkert said: whoever believes that the line between good and evil lies between Christian or non-Christian, still has a lot to learn.

This was the vision that stucked with me. Even though hell always remained something that I kept thinking about as a difficult part of Christianity, the last couple of years I didn’t think a lot about the subject. Until a teenager in my church (the same church that is awkward about talking about hell) asked me if it was true that everybody that doesn’t believe in God goes to hell. I was a bit shocked that he was viewing the world so black and white, but after that realized that not talking about it, does mean that kids form their own opinion about it based on (in this case) high school history books about the middle ages. Wasn’t I scared for exactly the same things as a young teenager?

I decided to dive deeper into the subject and after reading a lot of reviews on books about the afterlife from Goodreads member and theologian David, I decided to read ‘Four Views on Hell.’ In this book three theologians and one philosopher are all displaying their view on hell, based on what they read in the Bible and also in texts about the Bible from history and current times (C.S Lewis also comes up a lot in this book, especially in the last part from contributor Jerry L. Walls). After each part the other contributors tell what they think is wrong with the vision of the contributor and they also tell on which part they agree. It’s like an intellectual battle on the subject of hell. This already tells us one important fact, namely that there is not ONE view on hell, although a lot of people think that is the case. In the Bible there are quite a lot of texts about hell and afterlife, which often also contradict each other.

The first contributor is Denny Burk, who is defending the traditional Eternal Concious Torment view, the traditional view of hell which scared me as a kid (throughout the book he is called the ECT guy, which I found in a weird way kind of sarcastically funny). Reading this part I found out that my childhood and teenage fears were still somewhere rooted in my brain, because I couldn’t sleep the first night I read this part. However after reading further into the defence of Denny Burk my childhood fears mostly disappeared, because I soon found out that the ECT theory was for me the most unconvincing theory by far. Sure, there are texts in the Bible that seem to talk about Eternal Conscious Torment, but looking at this texts trough the telescope of the whole story of the Bible and the general patterns and storylines you find in it, it makes it seem quite improbable. And the harder Danny tried to convinces us that Eternal Conscious Torment is just and corresponding with a loving God, the lesser I believed him. Also the other authors in the book learnt me that the texts Burk is quoting can also be explained in different ways. So… reading this book gained me already one valuable point, I could finally leave this part of my childhood fear behind.

The other three authors Stackhouse (Terminal Punishment, which is to some extent resembling with the vision of Burke, but punishment doesn’t goes on forever), Parry (Universalism, everybody on the end will go to heaven, which also has some strong points, but left me wondering about free will. Although I hope that this vision is true, if there is something like heaven and hell after all) and Walls (with a new protestant vison on purgatory, whit a lot of C.S. Lewis, which I actually liked the most and which sounded most logical to me >> disadvantage: this part has the fewest literal bible text that plead for it, but could be very well true in context of the larger story of the bible when you think logically about it) all three had good points and weaker points.

The first conclusion of this book for me is that I still don’t know what to think about hell, although the visions of Parry and Walls had me wondering the most and I might read more about their theories in the future. Especially universalism made me curious for more, though I found myself agreeing/making notes most in Walls’ part of the book.
The second conclusion is that I like the concept of this book. It’s actually a series of the Zondervan publisher called ‘counterparts’ with a lot of difficult subjects, in which different people discuss different viewpoints with each other (with respect, love that!). Would be cool if this kind of books were also available on non-biblical subjects. I think it’s so enriching to learn about different visions in one book!
The third conclusion is: talk about taboos and dare to dive into the matter, dare to say that you don’t know the answers, that things are not always clear, about the difficult sides of subjects, about doubts. After reading this book and also another (Four Views on Heaven), I had a really good open conversation with a group of teenagers (i work in that church now (: ) about afterlife (they actually did have a quite black and white view, which I tried to nuance and challenge) and especially about what it means to have a good life in the life we are living right now and how we can bring more of beauty, love, goodness and heaven on this earth. That is what all the talk about afterlife in the end should lead to and that was one point where all contributors agreed on.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

Ever since Rob Bell's Love Wins, evangelicals have rushed to the defense of the traditional doctrine of hell. Bell's book was more suggestion than substance and raised the most ire among those who never read it, but there have also been a number of intelligent treatments on the fate of unbelievers and the nature of hell. Four Views on Hell, Second Edition showcases four options currently being discussed among evangelicals. Under the editorial eye of Preston Sprinkle (coauthor of Erasing Hell) with contributions from Denny Burk, John G. Stackhouse Jr, Robin Parry and Jerry Walls, this book presents the case for hell as eternal conscious torment, annihilationism, universalism and purgatory.

9780310516460_5This new edition of Four Views on Hell reveal how the contours of the debate have changed since the publication of the first edition in 1992. The original edition had two contributors arguing hell consists as 'eternal conscious torment,' one arguing for literal fire (John Walvoord) and metaphorical (William Crocket), one contributor arguing for annilationism (Clark Pinnock) and a Catholic contributor extols the virtues of purgatory (Zachary Hayes). In the current edition, the traditional doctrine on hell is represented by Burk. Burk doesn't take eternal fire as a literal flame as Walvoord did (28), though he does emphasize the eternal aspects of hell's duration. John Stackhouse takes up Pinnock's mantle in arguing the terminal/conditionalist/annihilationist position. Parry provides the biblical, theological case for Christian universalism (a new tothis edition) having previously published The Evangelical Universalist (under the pseudonym of Gregory McDonald). Jerry Walls gives a protestant case for purgatory for the faithful who die in Christ, arguing that purgatory is not about offering satisfaction for sin (which Christ offered on our behalf) but is about sanctification.

Each of these contributors has their strengths. After sharing a brief parable illustrating the seriousness of sin being measured 'by the value of the one sin against,' Burke makes the biblical case for hell as eternal conscious torment (19) based on ten foundational passages drawn from both testaments. Stackhouse also makes a strong exegetical and theological case for annilationism, arguing that eternal punishment and 'unquenchable fire' indicate the certainty of implications rather than duration, and eternal life is a gift to those who are in Christ. Parry's chapter emphasizes how Christ came to restore all things, and how having a sinner suffer eternal torment, or the eradication of a sinner doesn't appear to embody that end. Parry places his case within a biblical theological frame, emphasing the scope and trajectory of redemption. Walls is the odd man out in that he affirms with Burk the the reality of eternal conscious torment for those who are in hell, and posits purgatory, for those who trust in Christ as their savior (though he does allow for a post-mordem conversion). The respondents each give strong critiques of one-another's views, citing their various interpretive strategies, their use of theology, and interpretive strategies.

I generally don't find these 'four views' books to be exciting reading. Because of the way they are organized, a brief case with critical responses, by the time you get to last couple of chapters, you already have a pretty good idea of what the author will say before you read it. The effect is mitigated somewhat in this volume in that Parry's and Wall's chapters are by far the most interesting chapters in this volume. And Sprinkle has a fantastic concluding essay which highlights the relative strengths of each response.

The Christians with whom I hang around with most generally hold to the traditional view of hell, though I find the arguments for annihilationism to be fairly convincing. Sprinkle makes the case in his conclusion that annihilationism is the only view that logically precludes the possibility of Christian universalism, because if hell is eternal, that than there is the possibility of redemption (205). Certainly if Burke is right and Hell is wholly punitive, than the possibility remains unlikely. Parry's case sets universalism with in Christocentric framework with a hopeful trajectory (Stackhouse calls the case for univeralism ' the triumph of hope over exegesis', p.134). I am interested in exploring Parry's argument further and will likely read his Evangelical Universalist. Because of the brevity of each chapter, no respondent in this volume makes as comprehensive of a case as they otherwise could have, and each overstates their case in places. I give this four stars.

Note: I received this book from BookLook Bloggers in exchange for my honest review.

[Natalie Fetzer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I found this book helpful in giving me a reasonable theological understanding of what I have thought about hell intuitively for a long time.

I have always, since I was a young child, found the teaching of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment (ECT) terrifying. Unsurprisingly, the sort of god who would come up with and enforce such an idea for the purpose, as I later learned from the Piper and MacArthur acolytes, of his glory, was not a good, loving, or approachable god.

So for a while I've been living with a vague sense that the idea of hell I was always taught was wrong, but I never thought very much about what should replace it. I have with this book found an alternative theology of hell that suits the character of God much better.

[Jessi · Rating 4 out of 5]

I don't think my view has changed, but it was interesting to see the other positions clearly spelled out. It's a very accessible book into some of the major positions of the doctrine of hell.

[Joel Smith · Rating 3 out of 5]

Four Views on Hell was my introduction to a series of books on the four views. I had always accepted the view that Hell was eternal conscious torment and I did not think to take seriously the other views presented on the doctrine of Hell. This book is written by four authors/theologians with an introduction and conclusion by one of the two editors.

I think that the first two views were presented strongly. Denny Burk (Eternal Conscious Torment) and John Stackhouse Jr. (Annihilationist View) both used the Bible as carefully and as often as they could. I remain convinced of the biblical basis of eternal conscious torment and I think that if Hell really is the worst place that can be conceived of, it would also be eternal (we can imagine it, create it, and go directly on our own highway towards it). It also has a traditional backing that is unparalleled to the other views of Hell. That being said, I think that John Stackhouse Jr.'s writing and argumentation is the strongest of the four writers and I believe that he is justified in his view of hell based on his tight argumentation and constant and careful interpretation of the scriptures.

The third view is the Universalist view which is backed by Robin Parry. Parry is difficult to evaluate. I appreciate his noble desire to want God to save every human being and he tries to use as much scripture as possible to argue his point. However, he is full of logical equivocacies (e.g. using 'infinite' in two different ways; equating the scriptural evidence of the doctrine of the Trinity with the teachings on Hell). He argues that we ought not to get bogged down in "proof-texting" and let the general teaching of the Bible inform us, but, he uses this model to take texts out of context as proof of the Universalist view. I appreciate his attempt and desire but his case is more rhetorical than it is logical.

Interestingly enough, the fourth view on Hell isn't about Hell at all. It is about Purgatory. Jerry Walls (the writer of this view) and Stackhouse agree that it may be more appropriate as a discussion about the different views of Heaven rather than Hell. Either way, Walls helped me understand the reasons as to why the view of Purgatory is rising again in Protestant churches. He writes cautiously and humbly. He had a refreshing quality about him. The difficulty is that he uses a total of eight Bible texts that have only peripheral connections to the view of Purgatory he is trying to advocate for. After reading his view, I felt no need to justify my position with any real thinking in the face of his presentation, nor did I feel any need to argue against his view. I want to like Walls' position and he seems like he is really trying to present a joyful Christianity to his readers, but I find myself uncompelled in either direction when it comes to Purgatory. Perhaps the difficulty with advocating a Protestant view of Purgatory is that Protestantism does not believe that tradition has the co-authority with the Bible that the Roman Catholics believe.

With this alone, this book would get four stars, however, there are two other issues with this book that take away another.

I thought that Preston Sprinkle's introduction was a great primer to diving into the topic of Hell, however, I found his conclusion improper. While he did an okay job at laying out where the different places of the debate lay, he added a lot of his own opinion and beliefs on the issues. This isn't "Five Views on Hell," but four. The other issue that I have with this book is that the authors do not get a chance to respond to their critics to correct, update, or uphold their view. I understand that this book is supposed to be more introductory and theological rather than philosophical, but I think that a "response to critics" section for each author would help rather than hinder it's understandability.

I recommend this book to anyone who wants a good introduction to the doctrine of Hell and how different views justify their different perspectives.

[Seth Garcia · Rating 3 out of 5]

In this book, four contributors make brief cases for a particular view on hell, each of which is then responded to by the other three contributors. It’s a quick read, and works as a good introduction to each view that provides a jumping off point if one wants to read more about them.

Of course, in a book as short as this (just over 200 pages), 4 different views are only going to be given so much time to speak their mind. Each essay hovers around 25-30 pages, with each response covering about 5 pages. As I was hoping, this is the sort of book I could recommend to a layperson who was questioning their thoughts on hell, but it will inevitably lead to more questions (not a bad thing at all!).

I think the difficulty of such a book and such a topic is that the 4 contributors seem to be arguing for their positions from completely different grounds. Denny Burk, the essayist for the “Eternal Conscious Torment” view, makes his case almost exclusively from passages in Scripture (which I believe are poorly interpreted, but that’s beside the point). In each of his responses, he throws around the term “biblical” as a catch-all adjective to try to show why the alternatives are incorrect, but such a word has little meaning without the 4 contributors coming together and defining what “biblical” would even mean. John G. Stackhouse, the proponent of Terminal Punishment, makes his case primarily from citing biblical passages and etymology, while Jerry L. Walls, who supports a purgatorial view, cites almost exclusively church history and traditionally held beliefs. Perhaps it’s my own person bias, but only Robin A. Parry, the universalist essayist, even acknowledges that all four views can be supported through adequate proof-texting and all four views have considerable acceptance throughout church history, and he makes by far the strongest theological case for his view in light of the entire biblical story. But when there is no agreed upon basis for which the views are being judged, it feels, especially in the responses, as though the contributors are simply talking past each other.

I would consider this book a good introduction to the debate and discussion, but it is only a start—which may be a very good thing.

[Sam van der Leek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Four views on hell geeft zoals de titel aangeeft vier mogelijke perspectieven op de aard van de hel. In korte essays geven de bijdragers een weergave van hun standpunt, en vervolgens krijgen reageren de bijdragers op de essays van elkaar. De eerste ‘view’ wordt ook wel gezien als de traditionele visie op hel, deze view beschrijft eeuwige bewuste verdoemenis voor de goddelozen. De tweede view spreekt eerder over een tijdelijke verdoemenis, met uiteindelijk vernietiging van de heidenen. Het derde essay gaat over alverzoening, dus dat alle mensen uiteindelijk tot inkeer zullen komen en het eeuwige leven zullen genieten. Het laatste perspectief is die van het ‘vagevuur’, deze visie komt overeen met het traditioneel standpunt, maar deze visie gelooft ook dat de gelovigen nog door een tijd van heiliging en purificatie zullen gaan voordat ze verzoend zullen zijn met God.

Dan een waardering vanaf mijn kant:
Eerste en tweede view vond ik exegetisch en theologisch het sterkste, vooral afhankelijk van de betekenis van de Hebreeuwse en Griekse woorden. De schrijver van de derde view geeft op zich een mooi betoog over alverzoening, maar de tegenargumenten waren naar mijn mening sterker.

Over de laatste view was ik het minst te spreken, de schrijver geeft bijna alleen literaire referenties en maar weinig Bijbelse exegese. En zoals een van de responses van de andere auteurs aangeeft is de exegese die deze schrijver doet, een onjuiste interpretatie van het specifieke gedeelte. Ook blijft de vraag waarom de heiliging door zou gaan na de dood hangen.

Het is een behulpzaam boek voor ieder die zijn blik wil verbreden rondom de aarde van de hel. Een groot deel van de Bijbelteksten die gaan over het lot van goddelozen worden behandeld, en uitgediept. Dus dat zal je zeker meer inzicht geven over dit complexe onderwerp binnen het christelijk geloof.

Een quote:
‘As Christians, we must stand on God’s inspired word, even if this leads us to conclusions that are different from what we have previously believed.’ (Blz 15)

[Jack Hayne · Rating 3 out of 5]

It is a good place to learn each view on hell. However, in the responses, the authors spoke past one another. Substantive points were just brushed aside.

Please, Christians, don't just say someone's hermeneutic is deficient; therefore, their outcome is incorrect. It is a flawed understanding of hermeneutics and a more profound misunderstanding of Scripture.

I disagree with Stackhouse that if you are in a fire, you just become stubborn. I take a cold shower every day (or try to); I always want it to stop. My wife doesn't have to come and convince me to leave.

I don't know what I believe after the volume, but I would remain in eternal suffering with the hope of universal reconciliation. I stand with Maximus the Confessor in "honorable silence," as Daley puts it.

86% Your hermeneutic is bad! No, your hermeneutic is bad! You are too emotional; you're not emotional enough!

[Matthew McConnell · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ah, as I’ve finished yet another four views on ______ book, I find myself even more confused than when I started, which is to say that all four of these contributors did a great job arguing their respective cases.

In addition to the four contributors, Preston Sprinkle’s introductory and concluding remarks were helpful and insightful. In the final few pages, he says, “I will let you, the reader, chew on these arguments.” I sure am chewing, Preston.

[Martin Augestad · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lærerikt å få en introduksjon til forskjellige syn på helvete. Argumentasjonen for universialisme og skjærsilden var tynn. Evig fortapelse og utslettelseslæren var de mest interessante, og som jeg gjerne vil lære mer om i fremtiden. Likte at redaktøren selv kom med refleksjoner og oppsummering i avslutningen.

[Nathan Bozeman · Rating 4 out of 5]

I love the "Four Views" format, especially for topics you are undecided on or haven't studied before. It allows you to hear arguments for multiple views with immediate responses, allowing you to be as objective as possible.

I think each of the authors did a great job defending their view, and I was not expecting an evangelical perspective on Purgatory, so that was a very interesting read. Definitely recommend if you've never studied the topic of hell before!

[Liam · Rating 4 out of 5]

Hell. Probably the most controversial aspect of Christian belief. Also probably the biggest stumbling block for non-believers as they consider Christianity.

Hell is a terrifying doctrine. It is difficult for us to stomach as Christians - let alone those who don’t share our beliefs. Read one of Jonathan Edwards’ old sermons on the subject - you will be terrified.

At the same time however, the hope of a final, perfect justice reigning is an absolutely beautiful thought. A place of perfect justice is what all people long for in many ways.

But these concepts beg many questions. What is perfect justice? What does perfect justice reigning look like to an infinitely holy, infinitely perfect God? Are sins against a conscience given by an eternal, infinitely holy being, infinitely heinous, and therefore requiring an infinite punishment (1st essay)? Or are sins committed by limited and finite beings to have a limited and finite punishment - ultimately not being given the gift of eternal life except through Christ (2nd essay)? Or - will God’s mercy and grace in Christ surprise everyone in the end and be granted to all - even those who reject him in this life (3rd essay)? Or perhaps there is a way remaining for those after death to choose redemption in Christ (4th essay).

But, even more important to the believer, is - what does Scripture say of these things?

I came upon this book since hearing of Preston Sprinkle’s change of positions on hell after he wrote his defense of the traditional view in his ‘Erasing Hell.’ It fascinated me that, after studying all the arguments and scriptural data, he would change his position, once being such a staunch supporter of the traditional view. Sprinkle now edits this volume and he has selected proponents of each of the views presented that base their theological position squarely on Scripture.

This was a interesting concept for me because most who have advocated differing positions on hell in the past have not based their views on Scripture, but rather have come to it as more of an emotional response (the likes of Rob Bell come to mind here). However in this volume, I have found that the subject is much more complicated than it appears at first glance - and there are advocates of differing views on hell that have good scriptural arguments. While some of the essays were more convincing than others, I did find that Sprinkle’s case for more openness in the debate was compelling after reading these essays.

The four views of hell presented are:

1. The Traditional view of conscious eternal torment
2. The Conditional Immortality view (more commonly referred to as annihilationism)
3. The Christian Universalism view
4. The Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory view

I found this to be a fascinating read. Each of the essays made me think more deeply and brought concepts to my attention that I was unfamiliar with. I would have loved a modern defender of C.S. Lewis’ view of hell, such as Tim Keller, to have contributed in this volume as well - but that view can be found in Lewis’ The Great Divorce or Keller’s Reason for God. I also wanted more. The scope of this volume is naturally limited - but, 200 pages is hardly enough to cover four views and 3 responses to each view. Each argument was packed in so tightly that I seemed to barely get a grasp of it before the essay had ended.

I have yet to buckle down with the Biblical text and wrestle through a study on this doctrine. But I did find this volume a help for getting a sense of the issues at hand. I personally found that this book and the views of hell in it are a welcome alternative for those on the cusp of belief and find Jesus and the gospel satisfyingly beautiful - but who find the traditional view of hell too big of an obstacle to accept Jesus ultimately.

As for myself, I plan to study and read more on the debate between the traditional view and the conditional immortality view - both of which seemed to have the most scriptural support to me.

[Chris Huff · Rating 5 out of 5]

This contributors to this book do an excellent job explaining their view of hell, pointing to relevant passages of the Bible. While not being able to give a comprehensive defense for their position, I feel like each contributor had enough space to develop their view sufficiently to give a brief overview of why they believe it, where it's found in the Bible, and how (in their view) it best fits with God's purpose for everything.

I found the argument for purgatory to be least convincing. While I see the contributor's point that purgatory could be for sanctification rather than for satisfaction, it seems to be a point without a distinction. Whether it's for sanctification or for satisfaction, the outcome and reason for it is the same: the sinner is not fit for heaven, and must be made fit. But that's exactly what the blood of Jesus does! So there is no need for any kind of purgatory. So since the biblical support for it is lacking (even according to the contributor himself), I see no reason to consider any kind of purgatory at all.

As for the other three views, they did a good job arguing how their view (in their opinion) is what the Bible teaches. Even Ultimate Reconciliation demands careful consideration, as Robin Parry demonstrated how it could be perfectly consistent with Christian theology.

This book offers no final verdict on the correct view. The editor seems to favor one of them, but even raises hard questions about that view as well. In the end, he encourages the reader to read and study the Bible. And I kind of like it that way.

[JonM · Rating 4 out of 5]

This updated edition is much better than the first (which had different contributors).
Denny Burk's arguments in favor of eternal conscious torment are pathetic, and his responses to alternative views were also extremely unconvincing.

The only view more pathetic was Robin Parry's Universalism. Talk about question begging. As Stackhouse noted cleverly, Universalism is only impressive because it represents "the triumph of hope over exegesis," which is not actually impressive for those who give two farthings about biblical exegesis.

Walls' evangelical views about purgatory were interesting; not compelling, but certainly interesting.

The most persuasive biblical exegesis, logical reasoning, and theological reflections were found in John G. Stackhouse Jr.'s essay and responses about Terminal Punishment. Now I understand why some early church fathers (like Ignatius and Irenaeus) and contemporary stalwart theologians (like John Stott, F.F. Bruce) have held this view.

[Tanwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I normally don't read "Counterpoints" books because with that limited amount of space I find it inadequate to discuss four views of anything. But I needed an accessible book on annihilationism and I'm glad I did. 

In this book, the 4 major views on hell are compared and debated: (1) Eternal Concious Torment (the orthodox view) (2) Terminal punishment (Annihilationism) (3) Universalism and (4) Purgatory.

Some views are presented better than the rest but this book gives you a great high-level argument for each view. So although you might not shift to other views, at least it gives you a good understanding on where each view comes from.

As for my own journey, this book gives a solid foundation on annihilationism. This book really triggers my excitement to learn more on the subject.

4 out of 5

[Spencer · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am reviewing this book for McMaster Journal of Theology and Ministry, so I'll reserve my comments for that.

[Matt Koser · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four views on hell (Revised edition)

Not all four views books are created equal. The last one I read was 4 (or 5?) views on the gospel. It was disappointing. This one however was very well done.

Each of the contributors has their own chapter with a response from the other 3 contributors.

Ranking of views (this ranking is in order of who I thought presented the position best and argued best, not based on my own views)
🥇Parry (universal reconciliation/universalism) - clear explanation, biblically saturated, included some church historical interaction.
🥈Stackhouse (terminal punishment/annihilation) - felt a little discombobulated, good exegesis.
🥉Burk (eternal conscious torment) - Although Burk uses a lot of Scripture, his arguments miss the main concerns the other views present and therefore are unconvincing. I was surprised that there wasn’t a better option for contributor of the ECT position.
🪨Walls (purgatory) - Walls presented some really interesting ideas, but his arguments weren’t accompanied by much support. I’m not sure why a view primarily about purgatory was included in this book.
(It was hard to order Burk and Walls.)

Stackhouse and Walls were the best respondents

I wish the contributors would have commented more on the situation of church history/tradition. They (with the exception of Parry) mainly interacted with biblical texts and/or logical reasoning.

The biggest gap in the book is how the different views deal with pastoral concerns. With stakes and implications as massive as this doctrine raises, I’m surprised they didn’t pastor people through this conversation, especially Burk.

Sprinkle’s summary and critique of the four views in the conclusion was helpful.
______
My ⭐️ rating criteria
- ⭐️: I absolutely did not like or totally disagreed with the book and would recommend that no one else read it
- ⭐️⭐️: the book was below average style or content, arguments were very weak, wouldn’t read it again, but wouldn’t beg people not to read it necessarily
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️: a fine book, some helpful information (or a decent story, for the handful of novels I read), maybe I disagreed somewhat, enjoyed it decently well
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: a very good book, information was very helpful, mostly agreed with everything or it was a strong argument even if I disagree, was above-average enjoyable to read
- ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️: incredible book, I enjoyed it more than most other books, I want to read it again in the future, I will be telling everyone to read it for the next few weeks

[JB · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four Views On Hell digs deep into the fiery core of the following four perspectives:

1) Eternal conscious torment (the belief in a literal or metaphorical torment/separation from God that lasts forever)
2) Annihilationism (the belief that to go to Hell means to cease to exist)
3) Christian Universalism (the belief that all will eventually be saved from Hell through Christ)
4) Purgatory (the belief that God will sanctify believers in an anteroom to Heaven to prepare them for it)

The format of the book allows four different scholars to lay out a theological defence for their particular view, allowing each scholar to respond to the other in turn.

As a Universalist-leaning believer myself, it was refreshing to see Universalism presented as a serious perspective with a proper theological and philosophical foundation.

In some evangelical circles, Universalism is caricatured as the over-sentimental younger sibling of the wiser, traditional view of eternal conscious torment. Contributor Robin Parry shows that Universalism is not the 'new kid on the block' - its supporters date back to the Early Church. He is rigorous with his interpretation of the meta-narrative of the Bible and probes us with important philosophical questions.

The other contributors present their views thoroughly and holistically, too. I would argue that the Annihilationism view presented in this book is the strongest from an exegetical perspective. However, I believe that Universalism is given a stronger hermeneutical treatment with more watertight philosophical considerations. The eternal conscious torment view seems to be the most convincing prima facie, but does not seem to hold up to the scrutiny of the other scholars' exegetical critisms. Purgatory seems almost to be an add-on perspective - one that could augment or complement any of the other three views. It doesn't have a wealth of theological backing, but enough Biblical clues and implications to make you wonder if it could be true.

The format of the book allows for a well-rounded understanding of the main perspectives on the Christian theology of judgement and the objections to them. Whatever your view of Hell, this book will challenge it. You may come away emboldened, you may change your mind completely, or you might be left wondering how we can ever know. Either way, the book achieves its purpose - to present you with the arguments, and leave you to judge if they can stand the heat of debate.

[Jack Moriarty · Rating 3 out of 5]

I believe all four contributors do a fine job of defending their views on hell given the space. Only one of them impressed me.

I had to suspend my own inklings during my reading, as is necessary for a topic that draws heretical accusations more frequently than not.

Denny Burk defends Eternal Conscious Torment with a cutting exegetical prowess and the looming presence of tradition at his back. I fear his passages and rebuttals do reek of the conservative rigidity so often accompanied by his view. This does not aid his argument in my opinion, nor do his rebuttals.

John Stackhouse provides an excellent balance of moral philosophy, theology, and exegesis in his defense of Annihilationism. Stackhouse does a better job than Walls and Burk in making a holistic argument. However, he also leaves some to be desired in his tonality.

Robin Parry simultaneously untangles misconceptions about his view of Ultimate Reconciliation and provides fantastic scriptural arguments in its favor. His notations are impressive and aid in his making a strong case. His weaknesses lie in his heavy appeal to emotion and the holes he leaves in his constructed view of the Biblical Meta-Narrative. But, like the others, he only has a few pages and must use them efficiently, and I believe his section to be the most well-rounded.

Jerry Walls provides excellent insight into the outlier view (to me at least) of Purgatory. One strength is in his experience level with each view and his lack of hubris. His view is peculiar to me, and is also lacking explicit scriptural argumentation substantially in contrast to his peers, he also comes across as a bit lazy in his rebuttals.

Ultimately, I believe that Sprinkles conclusion is highly necessary in grounding the debate and recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each section, even though he appears to favor the Annihilationist view. I can confidently say that Sprinkles does a more succinct job in his response to each view than most of the other authors.

Overall, Parry has given me the most to think about.

I would prefer a roundtable discussion format with each author to better address the questions raised. It is rather frustrating to read strong yet unanswered rebuttals.

Would recommend.

[George P. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Four Views on Hell presents a point-counterpoint debate between advocates of the three main interpretations of the doctrine of hell among evangelical theologians. Denny Burk makes the case for “eternal conscious torment,” John G. Stackhouse Jr. for “terminal punishment,” and Robin A. Parry for “universal salvation.” Jerry L. Walls’ argument for a Protestant version of Purgatory rounds out the “four views,” but while interesting, it is out of place in this book, since Purgatory—whether in its Catholic or Protestant version—is heaven’s antechamber, not hell’s.

In his argument for hell as eternal conscious torment, Burk begins by telling a “parable” about a how people would respond if they came across a man pulling the legs off a grasshopper, frog, bird, puppy, or baby. Most people would respond with increasing horror to these incidents, and that horror would increase their desire to intervene in the situation. Burks argues that this parable demonstrates “the seriousness of sin is not measured merely by the sin itself…but by the value and the worth of the one being sinned against” [emphasis in original]. That is why “to sin against an infinitely glorious being [i.e., God] is an infinitely heinous offense that is worthy of an infinite heinous punishment.”

Burk recognizes that this parable represents a “theological conjecture” not explicitly taught in Scripture (though consistent with it). So the bulk of his argument identifies ten key biblical texts that “deal explicitly with hell and with the final state of the wicked”: Isaiah 66:22–24; Daniel 12:2–3; Matthew 18:6–9, 25:31–46; Mark 9:42–48; 2 Thessalonians 1:6–10; Jude 7, 13; Revelation 14:9–11; and 20:10, 14–15. He argues that each of these texts presents hell as “final separation” from God, “unending experience,” and  “just retribution.” Burk nowhere appeals to the immortality of the soul in his argument. Instead, in his discussion of the Isaiah passage, he infers that “this scene seems to assume that God’s enemies have been given a body fit for an unending punishment.”

Stackhouse makes the case for what he calls “terminal punishment,” which is also known as “conditionalism,” “conditional immortality,” and “annihilationism.” Stackhouse’s term, it seems to me, is more apt than these others because it clearly identifies both the nature (punishment) and duration (terminal) of hell in distinction from the eternal conscious torment position.

The core of his biblical argument focuses on the meanings of the words eternal, destroy, and death. Regarding the first word, Stackhouse distinguishes “an event or action that occurs for only a segment of time” and “the result of that event or action.” Advocates of eternal conscious torment believe hell is eternal in the first sense, the segment of time being everlasting. Stackhouse argues, however, that it is the result that matters. “Eternal punishment” is not an eternal process of being punished but a terminal punishment that has eternal consequences. He goes on to argue that second and third words “speak of the destiny of the lost as termination, end, disappearance, eradication, annihilation, and vanishing.” Such terminal punishment rules out the doctrine of the soul’s immortality. Stackhouse also discusses terminal punishment in terms of the finite duration of Christ’s death on the cross and of the goodness of God.

Parry makes the case for universal salvation, “the view that in the end God will reconcile all people to himself through Christ.”. This is “not some new-fangled liberal theology,” he writes, but rather “an ancient Christian theological tradition that in the early church stood alongside annihilation and eternal torment as a viable Christian opinion.” It should be distinguished from the version of universalism that teaches all religions are salvific. It is Christocentric, not pluralistic.

Parry argues that “a universalist doctrine of hell makes good sense” of “the biblical metanarrative, the grand story that runs from Genesis to Revelation”: creation, fall, redemption, and consummation. He cites Colossians 1:16–20 as one of many examples of what he takes to be universalist reasoning. He also responds to prooftexts commonly interpreted to be anti-universalistic: Mark 9:42–50; Matthew 25:31–46; 2 Thessalonians 1:5–10; Revelation 14:9–11, and 20:10–15. If God finally saves all in Christ, then what is hell? It is “judgment followed by restoration” [emphasis in original]. It is ultimately “restorative,” even if “retributive” for a time. Obviously, universalism requires a commitment to “post-mortem salvation,” which Parry acknowledges is consistent with Scripture, though not taught explicitly by it.

Of these three views, eternal conscious torment is the majority tradition of Christianity, while terminal punishment and universal salvation are minority voices. Each position can find advocates in the first few centuries of the church’s existence, but each one is exclusive of the others. If one is right, in other words, the other two are wrong.

My goal in this review is simply to introduce the main positions in the current debate. I would like to register one more caveat, however. (The first was that Walls’ argument for Purgatory was out of place in this debate.) The second also relates to Walls. Burk presents one version of the traditional view of hell, in which eternal conscious torment is warranted because sin is an offense against an infinite God. In other writings—especially Hell: The Logic of Damnation and Heaven, Hell, and Purgatory—Walls offers a different warrant for hell based on human choice. Picking up on C. S. Lewis’ remark that the door to hell is locked from the inside, Walls argues that hell is eternal because its inhabitants refuse to repent. This is the fourth view of hell that should’ve been presented in this book.

Still, Four Views on Hell is a useful one-volume introduction to the state of the debate about hell among self-identified evangelical theologians. Its point-counterpoint format helps readers see both what the arguments and counterarguments are for each position. Although frustrating, working through the best arguments and deepest critiques of each position can result in readers developing a more informed biblical, theological, and philosophical understanding of this important doctrine.

Book Reviewed
Preston Sprinkle, ed., Four Views on Hell, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2016).

P.S. If you liked my review, please click “Helpful” on my Amazon review page.

[Debbie Lea · Rating 5 out of 5]

The book was well written allowing each debater to assert their views and allowed the opponents to express their counter arguments. The arguments were thoughtful and were in no way belittling or derogatory. The bottom line, however, was that the arguments were not enough to sway me away from the view on hell that I posit.

[Carl Jenkins · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book ended up being a very interesting read as expected, with arguments for Eternal Conscious Torment by Denny Burk, Annihilationism by John Stackhouse, Universalism by Robin Parry, and Purgatory by Jerry Walls. I'll try to give a quick reaction to all four of the arguments.

Eternal Conscious Torment: This argument was probably the weakest out of the four. While he began with a parable that illustrates that the one being sinned against determines how strongly one should react to the sin being done, I'm not sure that it connects well to his argument, as the other authors pointed out in their responses to him. Yes, God is an infinite being, but the idea that a finite being sinning against an infinite God demands infinite punishment is not a theme I see presented in scripture. In fact, rather than proving that this theme is found in scripture, Burk seems to just accuse anyone who disagrees with him of not taking sin seriously. He writes, "Our emotional reflex against the traditional doctrine of hell reveals what we really believe about God. We tend to have a diminished view of sin-and thus of the judgment due to sin-because we have a diminished view of God. As one continues to read the other arguments, they will quickly find that despite Burk's claims, none of the authors have a diminished view of God or sin, even though they differ with him concerning the nature of hell. Burk focuses a lot on the glory of God, which was interesting to read, but I don't know that he did well explaining how the love of God results in the need for eternal conscious torment. The way it was presented painted a picture of both a god and a saved people who rejoice over, and find glory in the eternal torment of the lost, and a god who needs to witness eternal torture in order to feel glorified and powerful. I don't believe he was trying to paint that picture, but that's the picture I was left with from his arguments.

Annihilationism: Stackhouse's argument was not necessarily the best written, but I do believe it was ultimately the most convincing out of the four. I believe he found the best balance in all of the questions people have concerning hell without trampling over any text, or making them say something they aren't clearly saying. I wish he would have dealt more with some of the texts used for the traditional belief about hell.

Universalism: Parry's argument was probably the best written and the most interesting to read, though ultimately not convincing in my book. After Rob Bell's book 'Love Wins,' Universalism come more strongly on the scene than it had been, but it was still treated more or less like a joke. Parry's entry in this book leads to it being a position that needs to be taken more seriously and studied more deeply. That being said, the responses to a good job at pointing out the flaws in many of his arguments. I think Stackhouse said it best describing Universalism as "the triumph of hope over exegesis." Parry does a lot more question asking than argument making, which is good to make us think, but doesn't provide a real solid ground for the belief he is trying to defend here. There are a number of good questions that he does ask as Sprinkle points out in the conclusion of the book, and so, as was said, for many this chapter will most likely do more to force them to restudy their own position rather than convince them of Universalism.

Purgatory: Jerry Walls had a very interesting chapter, though I'm not exactly sure how it fit into the theme of the book. I might have missed it, but I assume his position is that hell is what we would normally think of as hell for many who desire to stay rebellious against God, but purgatory for those who don't. Even with that confusion, the chapter was interesting since it was written by a Protestant, and not a Catholic. Walls' version of purgatory is slightly different than the Catholic version, and actually fits in well with Protestant/Evangelical beliefs. Wells argues that rather than to pay off sins, the role of purgatory is to sanctify the individual so that they might be prepared to enter into God's holy presence. The Bible teaches us that some change must be made to us before we can enter into the full holiness of God, and Wells argues that Purgatory is how that is done. The biggest problem is a lack of any real scriptural arguments. He argues that it is like the Trinity, something that is not named, but is easily inferred from the texts, but he simply doesn't present any real scriptures that would suggest its existence. Rather he presents a lot of arguments made by C.S. Lewis, and while I enjoy Lewis as much as the next guy, I would rather read an argument that contained more Bible than Lewis. While I don't believe that Walls' position contradicts the traditional view of Hell at all, I just don't believe he argued well for it here.

Overall this was a really interesting read. It wasn't necessarily a 'fun' read, especially given the topic, but it was good in that it forces the reader to seriously think about their own position and challenges them on it.

This book was provided to me by netgalley.com for a fair and honest review.

[Ben Anderson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Balanced, fair, and thought provoking. One of the contributors managed to change my view on the subject.

[Daniel Lieber · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve been putting off this read for a few months because obviously the topic of Hell is an uncomfortable one to think about, but it is necessary to think about because the Bible wants us to know about it. A doctrine of Hell informs the believer’s view of God’s character, the believer’s humility and their evangelism. While this reflection may not explore all those applications at length, I hope it will prompt you to consider them according to the biblical description of Hell.

Denny Burk begins the book in defense of the traditional view of eternal conscious punishment and borrows from Robert Peterson who argued at least 10 explicit biblical passages on Hell and the final state of the wicked. These passages include Isaiah 66:22-24, Daniel 12:2-3, Matthew 18:6-9, Matthew 25:31-46, Mark 9:42-48, 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10, Jude 7,13, Revelation 14:9-11, and Revelation 20:10, 14-15. He seeks to identify in each passage 1) final separation, 2) unending experience, and 3) just retribution.

Upon my own reading of the passages, it is undeniably clear to me that there is a judgement for the wicked (undermining universalism) and that those who suffer judgement, suffer it with everlasting effect (undermining purgatory or similar corrective conceptions). In fact, the most consistent description of hell found in all 10 of these verses is its duration described as eternal, eternity, forever or without end. So on a simple reading of these verses alone, the only considerable options for one’s understanding of the nature of hell are eternal conscious punishment or eternal annihilation. Both agree that there is a judgement and whatever the nature of that judgement is, it is agreed to be eternal in duration.

While the language of these verses seems to speak of experience of hell (which would seemingly support eternal conscious punishment), I am not ready to rule out the possibility of that experiential language functioning analogically (perhaps to describe the dreadfulness of the punishment) as most of our language about God and heavenly being functions. Given the analogical language drawn from the Valley of Hinnom, (or the Greek name Gehenna) to describe Hell, there seems to be greater linguistic ambiguity regarding the nature of the judgement suffered rather than the eternality of it in these texts. However, these verses are explicitly clear about a double resurrection, that being the resurrection of the righteous and the wicked. It does seem strange to me that there would be a resurrection of the wicked followed by an end of their existence. In such a case, there does not seem to be a clear purpose for the resurrection of the wicked. It seems to me that there is a clearer purpose in the resurrection of the wicked if it is to prepare them suitably for their ultimate punishment for the duration of their eternal existence. Therefore, eternal conscious punishment does appear to be the most consistent view to me. In either case though (ECP or annihilationism), it should be acknowledged that the Bible speaks clearly about this reality being a dreadful and unbearable punishment.

Again, I think there is potentially a textually respectful argument that could be presented by annihilationists, but unfortunately their representative in this book, Jerry Stackhouse, fails to present it. Instead, he criticizes what he perceives are the implications of Burk’s God by suggesting a God who is glorified through eternal conscious punishment is egotistical and incompatible with the biblical revelation of his love. I say we should not dare to criticize God’s character regardless of how it is revealed. There must be a respect of the creator-creature distinction. God judges all things, not us. This view also seems to disregard divine simplicity as if God’s love and goodness could possibly be conceived of separately from His glory. Stackhouse suggests a view that God is preoccupied with His own glory is too narrow because it doesn’t account for his love and goodness. However, the Bible and classical theism teach that these are all essentially one. God’s goodness is His glory and His glory is manifested through love and all His other attributes. If they are all essentially one, then for God to be motivated by love or goodness is the same as Him being motivated by His own glory or nature. In all things, God manifests and exalts the greatness and majesty of Himself.

In another violation of divine simplicity, Stackhouse draws on Psalm 30:5 and Psalm 103:9 to establish that God’s wrath does not last forever. If God’s wrath is essential to His being, such a statement would suggest that God’s being does not last forever, which is to say God is not God. But if we say wrath is not essential to God’s being, then we acknowledge a more fundamental existing principle outside of God that composes God. This too would effectively say God is not God. Moreover, Stackhouse provides no explanation for how he is so certain that these Psalms are establishing a universal rule. Does God’s anger not last in relation to all people or just the psalmists? Given these difficulties, the doctrine of divine accommodation gives us clarity. The incomprehensible God reveals truth about himself to human beings by revealing himself in human language and experience. Therefore, when the psalmist who is a temporal being experiences or anticipates the relenting of the effects of wrath in time, he speaks of God with athrochronism in order to reveal God’s mercy, even though God maintains an eternal wrath against sin according to His eternal nature.

I think the closest Stackhouse comes to having a reasonable positive argument in favor of annihilationism rather than a potential objection or skeptical principle against eternal conscious punishment is in arguing that the words “death” and “destruction” have a narrow semantic range that always connotes a sort of finality. Even here though, I think Burk provides a compelling case that the words often connote the sense of final “ruin” but not necessarily annihilation.

I will lightly critique Burk in that he primes the reader with a hypothetical story to establish the principle that the heinousness of sin is determined by the value of the one sinned against. While I appreciate that Burk is trying to establish the holiness of God, he makes his greater argument vulnerable to criticism of this underlying principle since it is not founded upon strict biblical exegesis. It seems to imply that God must punish sin which I don’t think is necessarily true. God is impassible; He is not compelled to do anything outside of His own counsel and will. He is “not served by human hands” (Acts 17:25) and “He does all that he pleases” (Psalm 115:3). So the question is not whether God must punish sin, but whether he chooses to punish sin and how so? This framing of the question keeps the matter strictly biblical. What has God revealed to be true about Himself and His purposes?

As for the other writers, in my opinion, they fail to gain standing for a lengthy response. I think Stackhouse put it quite well in his rebuttal when he says, “For universalism, only deductive arguments can be seriously mounted, not strong exegetical ones.” The universalist, Robin Parry, simply employs “what-about-ism” by relying on other verses regarding God’s intent to save “all” without engaging or providing any coherent interpretation Burke’s verses. He essentially dismisses Burke’s judgement verses as being hypothetically true in the absence of Christ’s victory on the cross. However, this is anachronistic interpretation of those verses with no evidence for this perspective in the text of the verses themselves. It’s a speculative interpretation at best. I think Parry’s verses can be much more easily explained in harmony with Burke’s theology than vice versa. For the purposes of time and space I will omit explanation here but direct you to my reflection on John Owen’s Death of Death.

Jerry Walls, the advocate for purgatory, strangely focuses his response to Burke on the fact that he perceives God’s justice and love to be incompatible with determinism. This was bizarre considering that determinism is not the focus of this book, nor was it employed in Burk’s argument. But again, Walls has a pre-existing concept of love and justice that he needs God to fit into which brings him to the belief in purgatory. For Walls, it must be the case that the only people who remain in Hell are those who want to according to their own freedom because he believes that God’s love necessitates an eternal extension of grace to every individual. We should be clear that God is not just or loving because of anything He does. Nothing makes God just and loving. He is just and loving by His own determination. In other words, God is just and loving because He says so. In this way, we don’t infer that God must be some way or do something. Instead, we simply go to the biblical text to see who God says He is and what He is doing and then we submit ourselves to that revelation.

In Walls’ view, this extension of grace remains for all even after death, including those who died without being in a state of full sanctification. For this group of individuals, purgatory serves as a sort of preparatory holding place until they are fully sanctified and fit for heaven according to their “free will”. This supposedly answers the question of how professing believers are made perfect and fit for heaven. However, I think this argument fails to recognize that the believer’s regenerated inner man (or heart) is already a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17) that “partakes of the divine nature” (2 Peter 1:4) and lives its earthly life incarcerated by a sinful flesh (Romans 7). 1 Corinthians 15:51-57 says saints will be changed in an instant at the resurrection because “this perishable body must put on the imperishable” and the sting of death which is said to be sin will be no more.

Walls’ argument for purgatory is almost entirely reliant on philosophical gimmicks relating to “free will” and its necessity for “divine love” which he presupposes extends equally to all. The only verse claimed to be alluding to purgatory is 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. To extrapolate an entire doctrine of hell from a single verse with no explicit mention of hell and no demonstrated intent to further explain the nature of it is ill-advised (to say the least) and arrogant for any student of God’s revelation. I agree with Burk that the verse is instead referring to the invalidity of attempts to build the church upon human wisdom rather than the original foundation of Christ, even if the teacher is a Christian. It is also strange that Walls spends the majority of his time supporting his view by quoting the philosophical musings of C.S. Lewis rather than exegeting scripture.

In conclusion, Burk (while not perfect) is the most consistent and straightforward in his exegesis while the other writers depend on many philosophical gimmicks and qualifications before engaging difficult texts, if they engage them at all and don’t flee to seemingly more favorable ones. I have found it often to be true that the consistency of one’s method will reveal who is right in a debate setting. The other authors frequently come across as throwing darts at a wall to see which one will stick with the reader. It seems to me that the biblical passages about double resurrection (of the justified and wicked) and the judged having “no rest day and night” provide particularly strong evidence in favor of the eternal conscious torment view that appears very difficult for the other views to refute. While I leave open the possibility that the verses on the nature of Hell are analogical in such a way that is compatible with annihilationism, I find that view unlikely to be true to the authorial intent of the biblical authors. In my opinion, eternal conscious torment appears to be the most natural reading of scripture and most likely to be true.

[Michel · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great discussion between four views on hell:
1. Literal viewpoint
2. Metaphorical viewpoint
3. Purgatory viewpoint
4. Annihilationist view

I find the metaphorical viewpoint the most convincing, although not satisfying viewpoint, while I also want to give credit to the last viewpoint, which is given a strong case.

[Blair · Rating 4 out of 5]

This new edition is helpful because it engages with some of the broader debates within the evangelical world around universalism and the subsequent re-engagement with eternal conscious torment and annihilationist arguments.

You can read many reviews about the strengths and weaknesses according to various folks. And that is the point. To evaluate where you stand on the issue.

What I did find was that the tone and writing of the various authors was starkly different. Whatever the merits of his arguments, Denny Burk comes across as strident and harsh. His supporters would say that doesn't matter if he is right but his "rightness" comes across wrong, surely a problem when persuading others.