Hell: The Logic Of Damnation

by Jerry L. Walls

Jerry L. Walls cogently argues that some traditional views of hell are still defensible and can be believed with intellectual and moral integrity. Focusing on the issues from the standpoint of philosophical theology, he explores the doctrine of hell in relation to both the divine nature and human nature. He argues, with respect to divine nature, that some versions of the doctrine are compatible not only with God's omnipotence and omniscience, but also with a strong account of His perfect goodness. The concept of divine goodness receives special attention since the doctrine of hell is most often rejected on moral grounds. In addition, Walls maintains that the doctrine of hell is intelligible from the standpoint of human freedom, since the idea of a decisive choice of evil is a coherent one.

Genres: Theology, Philosophy, Christianity, Religion

182 pages, Paperback

First published August 31, 1992

About the author

Jerry L. Walls (PhD, University of Notre Dame), a world-class expert on the afterlife and a sought-after speaker, has written for Christianity Today, First Things, and Christian Century. He has appeared on NPR’s Talk of the Nation and in the documentary film Hellbound? Walls, professor of philosophy and scholar in residence at Houston Baptist University in Houston, Texas, is the coauthor of Why I Am Not a Calvinist and the Christianity Today Book Award Winner Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality. He has authored or edited a dozen books, including a trilogy on the afterlife—Hell: The Logic of Damnation, Purgatory: The Logic of Total Transformation, and Heaven: The Logic of Eternal Joy—and is a senior speaking fellow for the Morris Institute for Human Values.

Reviews

[Jarrett Vandiver · Rating 4 out of 5]

(3.5 stars) 2 main takeaways:

1) Those in Hell experience eternal conscious torment (ECT) because they deliberately and continually choose it over God. They want to be in Hell, not Heaven.
2) Annihilationism (the idea that God causes those in Hell to no longer exist) fails because it is unbiblical, unknown to the tradition of the church, and is based on the unfounded assumption that those in Hell, by their freedom, would rather cease to exist than remain in Hell.

Aside from the first half of the book, Walls makes a reasonable philosophical case for Hell as eternal conscious torment (ECT) while maintaining God’s goodness and human freedom.

Issues with the book:

I would only recommend reading chapter 5 to the end, and skipping the first 100 pages, as they contained material that was (1) factually problematic and (2) seemingly unrelated to the topic at hand. In the first four chapters, Walls lumps in Augustine and Aquinas with Calvin, calling their view “Calvinism,” assuming that two of the greatest thinkers in the Catholic Church simply agreed with John Calvin on matters related to grace and predestination. While there are a few similarities in their views, to unclearly jumble them together is frankly disrespectful to Augustine and Aquinas—two of the greatest theologians ever, who would not be happy to know that they have been put on the same kickball team as John Calvin.

The other issue with the first 100 pages is that Walls cites from numerous disagreeing philosophers on minutiae surrounding Molinism and God’s omniscience. While these issues relate in some ways to the doctrine of Hell, Walls did not make his argument clear, and I came away from those four chapters wondering what was the purpose of them.


With those problems aside, chapter 5 makes the first clear argument: Those who are in Hell choose it eternally, making repeated conscious choices to reject God in favor of their own will. They would rather suffer for the sake of themselves than rejoice for the sake of another—being God (p. 126). Finally, Walls puts forth several arguments to rebut annihilationism.

[Curby Graham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Read this for a master's class on the problem of evil.
Overall a very engaging and thoughtful read on the subject of hell from an Arminian/Wesleyan/CS Lewis perspective. Walls affirms that Hell is a real place and there will be those who will be eternally lost and suffer conscious punishment. He points out the problems with universalism and annihilationism and also takes to task the concept of open theism.

Now for those of us who are Reformed he also strongly disagrees with Calvinism but having said that I think this is a worthy book and should be in the library of any theologian and/or apologist.

[Filip Sylwestrowicz · Rating 4 out of 5]

Walls addresses the problem of hell, and more specifically two charges leveraged against the traditional doctrine of hell: (1) that it is immoral and inconsistent with God's goodness, (2) that it is unintelligible for modern people. His view is, broadly speaking, traditional, i.e. he believes in the eternal, conscious experience of hell. He portrays the hell as a place of misery where people suffer mentally and physically. His view, nevertheless, differs from the gruesome pictures of fiery tortures which occupied tge Christian imagination in the past. Walls thinks that people in hell would choose this place over the presence of God. These people must, therefore, feel something akin to a satisfaction or even a pleasure from this choice. Perhaps it is a feeling of a (false) superiority or an (unsound) "being in the right." Walls' defence of God's goodness is based on Molinist account of God's knowledge in relation to human freedom. Walls rejects Calvinism as fundamentally incapable of giving a satisfactory account of hell (Walls, rather idiosyncratically, uses the term Calvinism to cover all traditions that he deems deterministic, including Thomas Aquinas and Luther). Walls' discussion of Calvinism strikes me as simplistic. If he chooses to engage with Calvinism, I would expect something more substantial than a cursory reading of the Westminster Confession. It is probably unfair to label the medieval scholasticism or early modern Reformed theology as virtually identical with modern compatibilism.

All that being said, I enjoyed the book. Walls offers winsome articulation and defence of the (fairly) traditional doctrine of hell from the Arminian-Molinist perspective. It is certainly worth the time.

[W Tyler · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a fantastic philosophical defense of hell as eternal conscious torment. Walls covers all of the relevant issues in depth: the nature of divine foreknowledge, omnipotence, and goodness (this includes a discussion of Calvinism, Arminianism, and Molinism), and the nature of human freedom in light of these things. Ultimately he opts for a hopeful, love-centered position in which God always leaves the door open for the redemption of sinners (even into eternity), but in which certain sinners can gradually become fixed in their refusal of God until they have lost the ability to turn to Him, thus condemning themselves for eternity. He criticizes universalism for not taking human freedom and divine love/goodness seriously enough, but he criticizes Calvinism much more harshly; in fact, he admits that the difference between his own view and universalism (of the form advocated by Thomas Talbott) comes down to a controversial and unclear judgment about the nature of human freedom. This is essential reading for this topic.

[Jonathan Ammon · Rating 4 out of 5]

HELL: THE LOGIC OF DAMNATION is a must read for anyone interested in apologetics regarding Hell or Hell and Christian philosophy as Walls works through just about every philosophical objection to Hell and gives them each what seems to be a very thorough and fair consideration. His conclusions are that Hell as Eternal Concious Torment cannot be philosophically defended under Calvinism at all and can only be defended by both the acceptance of libertarian free will and a modification that allows for purgatory or the granting of some way to receive the gospel upon or after death. I find his view that the unsaved who are not fixed upon opposing God will receive salvation after death hopeful speculation, but appreciate his closely reasoned process through the arguments. I would prefer to take Wesley's approach that maintains that the fate of the unevangelized is a disturbing mystery than affirm a view unsupported by Scripture.

[Ken Reese · Rating 4 out of 5]

I didn't find the final arguments persuasive but the book was good to challenge my reading of scripture and philosophical engagement with the topic.