Four Views On Hell is a uniquely challenging book that deals with one of the more difficult theological themes in Christianity throughout the ages. The four men who contributed to this work are held in high esteem in many theological circles, and have been staff and leaders at such places of theological learning as Dallas Theological Seminary and McMaster Divinity College. They hold 4 widely differing views on this difficult issue, and they bring their own preconceived ideas and beliefs to the table while doing so. In this text, four different views on Hell are presented and after each initial presentation the other 3 writers present a rebuttal. The result of this format is that the readers find themselves in the position of filtering through all of the information to reach a palatable conclusion. Uniquely, there are no final summaries in which the author or publisher choose one option as being preeminent. As a result, this responsibility falls squarely on the shoulders of the reader. As these four views are examined in this critique, it will become apparent that the view that is most palatable is the view that Hell is an eternal place of fire and torment, which is the argument made by John F. Walvoord.
Summary
Walvoord proposes that the Literal view of Hell as a place of eternal torment by fire is the correct theological position to hold. Crockett would agree with Walvoord as far as the eternal nature of hell, but differs in that he contributes the “black fire” of hell to be the product of the active imaginations of Jewish authors. Pinnock, in his response to Walvoord cannot reconcile the concept of a loving God with the concept of eternal torments and as a result adopts the theology that although the punishment of hell exists, it will not be eternal as the wicked will be completely consumed and destroyed by fire.
William Crockett is charged with defending the metaphorical view of hell. He proposes that hell is indeed a place of terrible judgment, but that the exact nature of that punishment is unknown and unknowable. Crockett proposes that the harsh nature of hell has in part been formulated by those wishing to “scare” unbelievers into repentance. Although Crockett finds an ally in Pinnock as far as the non-literal nature of hell, Pinnock points out a major flaw in Crockett’s theology in the fact that this leaves us with no picture of hell at all. What if hell is worse than what we pictured? Wouldn’t that make God even crueler? Pinnock seems to be uncomfortable with this theological gap, and seeks a more definitive answer to the question of the nature of hell.
Zachary Hayes is charged with the thankless task of presenting the purgatorial view of hell. Hayes begins by distinguishing between the interim state in Christian theology and the purgatorial state. The difference between these two concepts is that the purgatorial state is one where the process of redemption continues on, and in the interim state, the soul or spirit merely waits for judgment. Crockett points out in his response to Hayes’ purgatorial view that the concept of purgatory undermines the concept of the grace of God. God’s grace does not need an extension, so to speak, and the work of the cross is sufficient to save us from eternal damnation.
Clark Pinnock is given the task of defending the Conditional view of hell. This view which is also known by its less appealing moniker of annihilationism proposes that the impenitent soul will eventually be consumed and simply cease to be. Walvoord in his rebuttal to this point of view brings the charge that Pinnock’s conclusions are far too reliant on human opinion and humanity’s misplaced sense of fairness.
Critical Interaction- John F. Walvoord
Walvoord makes the most compelling argument amongst the four natures of hell that are portrayed in this text. Although Hayes, Pinnock and Crockett make some tantalizing points, Walvoord expertise in the argument can be summed up in the following statement: If one accepts the authority of Scripture as being inerrant and accurate, it is clear that Christ taught the doctrine of everlasting punishment. Walvoord makes his case stronger through the use of unedited, uninterpreted Scripture which at times is a glaring weakness of the other 3 authors in this book. Walvoord continues this trend when refuting the metaphorical view of hell that is proposed by Crockett. His basis for this is that Crockett and the other authors rely too heavily on extra Biblical sources or traditions. “I soon determined that the issues could not be settled by citing authorities outside the Bible. Walvoord continues his strong and successful attack on the liberal use of extra Biblical resources when combating the purgatorial view of hell held by Hayes. In his final response to the annihilationist view of hell, Walvoord poses a question that is of vital importance in this discussion. Does human opinion change a situation? As will be seen in our study of the views of Hayes, Pinnock and Crockett, human opinion often plays a much larger role than is appropriate.
William Crockett
The metaphorical view is one that is held and defended by William Crockett. Crockett may set out with the best of intentions, but his arguments eventually betray his intentions. His arguments are inherently weak and in effect erase any conclusions about the nature of hell. At what is perhaps his weakest point, he quotes Billy Graham and his view on hell as evidence and proof of the metaphorical view. This heavy reliance on the opinions and beliefs of other human beings and the lack of interest in Biblical fact betrays the fact that Crockett is really not comfortable with the idea of an eternal, fiery hell on a personal level and this affects his view of the truth. As a result, Crockett fails to make a coherent argument for the metaphorical view of hell. This preference for human rationale over Biblical truth continues in Crockett’s rebuttal of the concept of a literal hell. This choice is most clearly exhibited in Crockett’s statement, “ the Biblical writers do not intend their words to be taken literally”. In what seems like a complete underestimation of the power of God, Crockett argues that the incongruent nature of fire and darkness mean that the concept of hell as eternal fire and darkness is mere hyperbole, and not fact.
Zachary Hayes
It seems that Zachary Hayes has drawn the shortest theological straw, as his task is to defend the purgatorial view of hell. The weaknesses of his argument are very apparent and at times troubling. The most troubling element of this argument is summed up in his statement, “the text of Scripture is not in any sense a verbal message from God”. Here, Hayes mixes a partial truth with an immense deception. Yes, the Holy Spirit helps to reveal and give understanding regarding Scripture, but the intermediary of the Catholic Church is not a necessary part of that transaction. It is also disingenuous to discount what is presented as solid Biblical fact while pretending to wait for some kind of spirit filled revelation. This viewpoint has the secondary effect of undermining the efficacy of the grace of God, as it proposes that the regenerated person may not be quite good enough when they die and that the grace of God does not cover all of their sins. This is contrary to an indisputable Biblical teaching that needs no extra Biblical interpretation. This reliance on human opinion has a metamorphic impact on Scripture and interpretation is a recurrent theme in Hayes’ response to the literal view of hell that Walvoord proposes.
Clark Pinnock
The conditional view of hell proposed by Clark Pinnock argues that hell is indeed a place of punishment, but that it is not eternal and that at some point in time, those in hell will be completely destroyed. Pinnock seems to reach his conclusions regarding hell from a humanistic point of view rather than a Biblical one. “It (hell) has been used as an effective weapon in the hands of skeptics for use against the faith.” Pinnock, in this startling statement seems more intent on making the concept of hell palatable for skeptics, than adhering to Biblical truth. Several weaknesses exist in this approach, the first of which is that skeptics are not who we should look to for theological direction, and the second being, what makes Pinnock believe that a concept of hell that is only temporary but followed by destruction is any more tasteful to those same skeptics. Given the finite inability of the human mind to grasp the concept of eternity, does a hell with lengthy period of fire followed by destruction have that much more appeal than an eternal, fiery hell? One recurring theme of his view on hell, as well as his rebuttal to the views of the other authors is that Pinnock seems to have very little grasp on the concept of God and evil. The two cannot coexist, and Pinnocks’ claims that an eternal, fiery hell are more indicative of a sadistic God who seems to be on the same moral level as Hitler. Although these are only impressions that Pinnock has drawn from the concepts of a Literal hell, they are damning to his objectivity regarding this topic.
Conclusion
This book was an excellently prepared and stripped down version of a very difficult topic. Hell is not a subject that many evangelicals want to talk about, and this may be in part because it is uncomfortable to tell people that they may face eternal damnation, or it may be that we just don’t know what we believe. Either way, this book does much to dispel the ignorance that we may have toward this difficult topic. The book really requires the reader to engage the topic and to interact with the different views on hell. One of the unique aspects of this book is that there is not much in the way of interaction with the author. We are presented with four views on hell, but we are not really given any conclusion or even preface from the author. This lacks the typical format that readers have come to expect, but also creates a comfortable lack of preachiness that may turn off some readers. The author did an excellent job of achieving his purpose, and the reader cannot help but feel greatly encouraged to investigate this difficult concept further.
