Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment

by Robert A. Peterson, John F. MacArthur Jr. (Foreword), David F. Wells (Foreword)

Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment

Genres: Theology

272 pages, Paperback

First published July 3, 1995

Reviews

[Joseph · Rating 1 out of 5]

Emotionally charged and scripturally weak.

For the purpose of full disclosure, I am an annihiltionist, one of the people Peterson says need to "repent and submit to God's glory by submitting their minds to the truth" (pg. 89). I obviously disagree Peterson's ultimate conclusions, and seldom give good reviews to books that try to prove the bible really does teach eternal torment (since I obviously think they fail). However, this is among the worst I have come across.

For starters, like my title indicates, it is packed with emotional appeals and personal attacks, the kind of things my side is usually accused of. Hardly a single chapter goes by without a mini-sermon on the importance of adhering to the traditional doctrine out of compassion for the lost. He brands universalism as "evil" and literally says it is a sin to hold that belief (pg. 156). While I don't agree with universalists, not all universalists believe the doctrine because they refuse to submit to God - some actually do base it on exegesis (although I ultimately think they fail, as does Peterson). He argues against annihilationism because it will lead unbelievers to underestimate their fate, that they won't repent if they don't think they will be tortured forever. Call me crazy, but if they aren't going to repent when told of Jesus and the prospect of eternal life, then I might dare say they don't believe in Jesus! The cross is foolishness to those who perish (1 Cor. 1:18). Not everyone believes, and I hardly would think a lot of people believe but willfully choose against God because they believe in annihilation instead of eternal torment. We don't scare people into heaven - someone who, not knowing any better, "converts" out of fear and not genuine faith is going to the same Hell either way (whatever its nature).

Along those lines, in the conclusion of the book, he looks at two hypothetical pastors. The one who does not preach about Hell is not only seen as a bad pastor (which I could understand - if eternal torment were true), but Peterson actually implies that he is damned, reasoning that failing to preach to his parishioners about Hell is "lullabying them to Hell" and is tantamount to leading in children to sin (cf Matt. 18:5-6). I kid you not (pg. 236-237).

And though not an important point, he several times appeals directly to unbelievers. What unbeliever would read this book in the first place?

EXEGESIS:
Peterson does address the scriptures at times, but not successfully. Many of his points revolve around Revelation 20:10. How do we know that "eternal fire" of Matthew 25:41 refers to eternal torment? Because the Devil is eternally tormented in Revelation 20;10. How do we know that God being "all-in-all" and putting "all things in heaven and on earth under one head, even Christ" (1 Cor. 15:28 and Eph. 1:10, NIV) doesn't indicate eradication of evil? Because the end of Revelation teaches eternal torment.

He makes unwarranted assumptions. Any claim of separation requires eternal existence. Why? I don't know. He just says that it presupposes it. Obviously one needs to be alive at the moment of separation, but what if separation is the cause of the eternal extinction? That isn't even touched upon.

Many solid annihilationist arguments are completely ignored or misunderstood. Regarding Revelation 20:10, he barely addresses any of them, for as he admits 12 years later, he didn't understand them (in "Fallacies in the Annihilationism Debate? A Response to Glenn Peoples" in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological society, 2007, free online).

He argues that "proper theological methodology involves allowing New Testament writers to move beyond their Old testament background in keeping with the progress of revelation" (pg 63). In other words, in verses where the Old Testament is either quoted or clearly alluded to, it is actually improper to take into account what the Old Testament said! This explains a lot when reading his take Mark 9:48, as well as Revelation 14:9-11 (where he makes no mention of the Old testament use of almost identical language in Isaiah 34:9-10).

He uses "weeping and gnashing of teeth" as proof of torment and pain, despite the fact that, despite the way that phrase is used today, it suggests sadness and anger, not pain. Look up the descriptions of gnashing of teeth in the Old Testament - they speak of anger, not pain. And weeping can mean all kinds of things.

He uses the NIV almost exclusively. Generally, I like the NIV. However, it is not the most literal version, and they do take some big interpretational liberties, especially when dealing with eternal punishment. Compare Jude 7, Mark 9:43, Luke 16:23, and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 in NIV with any more literal version (NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV. NRSV, etc). Peterson's arguments on these passages rely on the unique, traditionalist-friendly interpretations (not literal Greek translations) of the NIV.

One chapter is devoted to the view of the church throughout history. Interestingly, he starts in the third century with Tertullian. Never mind that some of the earliest and most influential Christian leaders from the 1st and 2nd century (such as Ignatius of Antioch and Ireneus of Lyons) were explicitly conditionalists (which might give some background on the early church's view on the meaning of 'eternal fire" and "eternal punishment," which the conditionalist fathers speak of).

Regarding the language of destruction seen throughout the New Testament (i.e Matt 10:28), he basically argues to the effect of "well, the rest of the bible teaches eternal torment, so it must not be literal destruction." At least other such traditionalist writings have attempted to make a serious case regarding the actual texts in question, usually by pointing to the ambiguity of the Greek words involved. As is the case in much of the book, he relies on systematic theology and the idea that what the bible says on the whole interprets passages. A legitimate practice on its face, but he takes it too far.

In general, there are just simply lots of emotional arguments, the occasional non sequitur, and exegesis of prooftexts that offers nothing new. The study is shallow; seldom are any serious or strong arguments against traditionalism dealt with. It's easy to argue against universalism when you devote 2/3 of the chapter against the teaching of an individual theologian who essentially denies the deity of Christ and the authority of scripture...

If you believe in eternal torment and just want to feel good about yourself and get a pat on the back from a respected theologian, then buy this book. If you, whatever your view, are looking for a serious study of scripture, run.

[Dean Rusk · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book reads as a conservative Christian pastor galvanizing his readers against the onslaught of liberals because “our way of life is being attacked”.

I felt that many of the arguments were poorly formed and relied on emotions. This works well if someone already agrees with you, but I was looking for a critical analysis of scripture and did not feel that I got that. I feel that the author probably did not fairly represent alternative views or give them appropriate attention.

I read this book to look into the validity of annihilationist position on hell. I’m not satisfied with the analysis of the subject from this book.

I gave this book two stars because it did gather a lot of relevant scripture into one place for me to read and interpret. I came away feeling that scripture speaks for itself and affirms the traditional view of eternal punishment in hell. The annihilationist position can apply to many verses talking about the destruction of the wicked, but struggles to deal with verses like Matthew 25:46

“And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.””

[Christian Barrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a helpful book on the doctrine of Hell. While I do not necessarily agree with Peterson’s assessment of universalism in the early church, I did find this book helpful as it traced the consistent objections to the doctrine of hell that have been raised throughout the history of the church. Where this book is really helpful is during the exegesis of passages throughout the Scriptures that speak of an eternal hell and the exegesis through parts of Scripture that often used to argue for universal salvation. This book definitely needs an update as we have entered into a very different era intellectually on this issue.

[Exodus Books · Rating 4 out of 5]

An issue that frequently gets left out of debates on the eternality of Hell is that it is not Christians who decide which souls suffer there, it is God. God is just, and His justice demands satisfaction—in the case of those who reject Him, that means they must suffer forever abandoned to their own sins and completely removed from His presence. Unbelievers have always rejected this, but increasing numbers of Christians are embracing alternative views in which Hell is not eternal, or no one actually goes there, or it doesn't even exist.

Against these heresies Robert A. Peterson writes Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment. Many will doubtless react violently against the subtitle, defaming Peterson as a heartless Hell-monger intent on the punishment of damned souls. Even a cursory reading demonstrates that his attitude is nothing of the kind, that it is precisely his desire to see the lost brought to Christ that has led him to defend the orthodox doctrine of Hell's eternal torments. The real difference between Peterson and those he writes against is that he uses the Bible, traditional doctrine and reason rather than emotion to form his arguments.

Peterson addresses four heresies: the non-existance of Hell, universalism, post-mortem evangelism (souls are won after death), and annihilationism (lost souls are exterminated at death). The bulk of the book consists of support for the orthodox view (eternal punishment for the rebellious) from Scripture and Church history. At the end he addresses a variety of subsidiary questions (like "What happens to babies that die?") and ties everything together with the issue's significance both for saints and unbelievers. Throughout he maintains rigorous adherence to orthodox doctrine in the Reformed tradition.

Hell on Trial is particularly timely. With popular Christian writers from the scholarly (Clark Pinnock) to the popular (John Stott) and postmodern (Rob Bell) writing books and delivering sermons and lectures calling the orthodox Christian doctrines of Hell, justice and punishment into question, the need for a rational response is great. While the emotional element of any doctrine cannot be ignored, the concept of Hell in particular is one which we cannot alter simply because it evokes feelings of resentment or anger—as Peterson points out, the most we can do is seek to understand the doctrine and ask God to change our hearts while spreading His Gospel.

[Steven H · Rating 5 out of 5]

A SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGIAN DEFENDS THE TRADITIONAL DOCTRINE AGAINST ANNIHILATIONISM

Robert A. Peterson is professor of Systematic Theology at Covenant Theological Seminary; he has also written books such as 'Salvation Accomplished by the Son: The Work of Christ and Election' and 'Free Will: God's Gracious Choice and Our Responsibility,' and opposed Edward Fudge [author of' The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of the Doctrine of Final Punishment'] in the book 'Two Views of Hell: A Biblical & Theological Dialogue.'

He wrote in the first chapter of this 1995 book, "Confusion about the afterlife---is there anything more tragic? What are the competing views about the destiny of the wicked, and how do they measure up to Scripture? As scholars challenge historic teachings on hell, how solid is the biblical evidence for eternal punishment? And what difference should that biblical teaching make in our lives? Those are the concerns of this book." (Pg. 2-3)

He admits, "Taken by themselves, this verse [Mt 10:28] and similar ones that speak of 'destruction' are compatible with annihilationism, the teaching that God will blot the wicked out of existence. In the light of all of Scripture's teaching, however, it is clear that the 'destruction' spoken of here is God's punishment of the ungodly with forfeiture of all that is worthwhile in human existence." (Pg. 44) Later, he also states, "many passages... could, if taken by themselves, be construed to teach the extermination of the wicked:... If Scripture gave us no other teaching on the destiny of the wicked than that provided by these and similar passages, annihilationism would be a viable option." (Pg. 163)

Commenting on Revelation 20:10-15, he says, "Attempts to show that being 'tormented day and night for ever and ever' signifies annihilation are not persuasive. For example, the assertion that [it] had nothing to do with the fate of lost human beings is false for two reasons. First, Jesus taught that unsaved humans suffer the Devil's fate: 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil' [Mt. 25:41]. Second, the verses that follow ... depict resurrected human beings being thrown into the lake of fire..." (Pg. 89)

He notes, "When Jesus explains the meaning of the weeds [in Mt 13:40-42] being cast into the furnace, he does not speak of consumption. He warns of suffering... That is not to say that this parable is incompatible with annihilationism. An annihilationist could hold that after the crying and gnashing, the damned will cease to exist." (Pg. 167)

Peterson's book is an excellent biblical and theological analysis of the traditional doctrine, and will be of considerable interest to anyone studying the issues of hell, annihilationism, universalism, etc.

[Collin Campbell · Rating 3 out of 5]

Robert Peterson offers a fairly persuasive argument for eternal conscious torment (ECT), otherwise known as the traditional view of hell. I have been influenced by the annihilationist view of hell, but I had never read a work arguing for ECT.

Peterson deals with the annihilationist view argued by the works of modern writers in chapter 9. The most persuasive aspect of this chapter was his argument that the “fire” metaphor of Scripture is meant to point to the pain of fire rather than the destroying nature of fire (Rev 14; 167-168).

Peterson has forced me to deal with the ECT position more fairly. I still have two questions after reading his work:

1) How does the resurrection of the dead square with ECT? In other words, if unbelievers who are not united with Christ are eternally tormented, how do their bodies survive? His treatment of this subject still left me with questions of this. The Scriptures still speak of immortality as a gift given to believers (ROM 2:7; 1 Cor 15:53-54; 2 Tim 1:10).

2) Should annihilationists be considered orthodox? Peterson calls those who believe in annihilationism to repent of holding to this false teaching at the end of his chapter (178). Should those who hold to annihilationism be called heretics? I am not sure that we should be quick to do this. Annihilationists are grappling with the text of Scripture. As long as annihilationists are not denying the existence of hell or the justice of God, I am not ready to condemn them as heretics, but I am happy to hear push back on that.

[Sam C · Rating 3 out of 5]

Peterson is clearly convinced of his position and presents some interesting points. I wish there was a bit more acknowledgment of the ambiguities of a few of these passages. With such a vast topic as the one in question, it is understandable that Peterson does not have the space for exhaustive exegesis, but the conversation feels unfinished at times

[Anna Goerner · Rating 5 out of 5]

A very interesting book on the doctrine of hell

[Brad Dymit · Rating 3 out of 5]

6.5/10 good heart and desire but not as rigorous or focused as his Two-Views book.

[Eric · Rating 1 out of 5]

I need to give this book a low rating not because I disagree with the author’s conclusions (but of course that has to have some influence on me), but because the writing itself is just so poor. The author spares much effort in being interesting and trying to transcend a poorly fleshed-out outline from the first page to the last.

That being said, I DO disagree with the conclusions of the book, and I would like to record my thoughts here for my entertainment and possible future reference. I have recently been thinking a lot of my beliefs and attitudes which I learned from the conservative church. One very-accessible author I have engaged with a lot is Brian McLaren. He has a very different view on hell, and if one is interested, his book “The Last Word and the Word After That” would be a good place to begin. One of the respectable things he does, however, is give a chance to those who disagree with him. He gave a very fair hearing to his opponent’s views and then taught his own. But he noted that anyone who wanted to study a good summary of the traditional view of hell should read this book. (In hindsight, perhaps he suggested this book not to be fair, but because he knew it was somewhat less than convincing. I prefer to think, however, that there isn’t very much convincing literature out there that takes the traditional view.)

One of the main problems with holding on to the traditional view of hell that Peterson teaches is that it seems intuitively wrong—both to “unbelievers” and “believers.” There is something inside of people that rejects this idea and wants it not to be true. Peterson even admits this: “We must bow before [Jesus’s] authority and accept his terrible teaching on hell. Although it is not easy to adjust our thinking and emotions to that doctrine, we need to submit every area of our lives to Christ’s Lordship, including what we believe about the afterlife.” What Peterson DOESN’T do, though, is give any explanation why no one wants to believe in hell. He can’t even say that it is because of our sin nature that we reject whatever is true and right. The argument to me is strong which says: Because God is good and creative, it is not like God to send God’s creatures to an eternal, conscious torment in hell for finite sins; therefore God must have some other plan.

Another problem with Peterson’s teaching is that he takes all the verses about hell and ties them all together to make his doctrine. The problem is, the verses are never intended to give a doctrine of hell. Each verse on its own has a larger context that Peterson usually ignores. When the larger context is examined, I find that the point is never “This is what hell is like.” Instead I find that the point is often, “Live lives worthy of the kingdom. Do good. Do justice. Don’t be a hypocrite.” McLaren (in The Last Word and the Word After That) does exactly what Peterson is doing. He takes every passage in which hell is mentioned. He makes a chart and then writes out the context and the point of the overall text. Over and over it can be shown that the authors’ points are never to give a specific doctrine of hell; rather they are trying to inspire their readers to follow Jesus and his teachings of a better life.

Lastly, I think it is appropriate to point out that in the Bible, hell is always shown as a place for those who are wicked and disobedient, NOT those who don’t believe correct doctrine. Yet Peterson seems to miss this in his book. He stresses the urgency for believers to preach the truth about Jesus so that people will believe and be saved from hell. Yet Jesus’ point was never for people to believe the correct doctrines about him. He was concerned that people follow God and live righteous lives. All his warnings about hell are for people who are wicked and disobedient, not for those who have an incorrect view of the Trinity, et. al.

[Mitch · Rating 1 out of 5]

This is probably one of the weakest treatments of the doctrine of hell and eternal punishment that I have read. He borrows a lot from the logic of W. G. T. Shedd (not a bad thing) but you'd be better off just reading Shedd. I found in many cases, the references that he included (specifically from Martin Luther and John Calvin) to support the doctrine actually served to challenge what he was trying to present. Very poorly done in my assessment.

[Douglas Wilson · Rating 3 out of 5]

Sturdy.