"Four Views on Hell" is a book that explores and presents four different perspectives on the biblical concept of hell. The book features contributions from four evangelical theologians. None of them deny the existence of hell, but each argues, based on scriptural evidence, for a different vision of what hell is like: eternal, conscious torment (the traditional view), terminal punishment (annihilationism), ultimate reconciliation (a Christian sort of universalism), and purgatory.
The eternal conscious torment position is the traditional view largely held by Christianity for centuries. It sees hell is a place of God’s punishment for sin, where people experience conscious torment. In this view, hell lasts for eternity.
While the idea of hell is increasingly rejected in our day for emotional reasons, our views must be tested against scripture versus emotion. This first view is based on a high view of God and a high view of sin, arguing that a diminished view of sin, which results from a diminished view of the holiness and glory of God, leads to a diminished view of hell. In light of a high view of God, even the smallest sins are serious, because they are committed against a being of infinite value and importance. As a result, an eternal punishment cannot be simply dismissed. Likewise, if God’s goodness is so infinite compared to us, then it follows that our sin (against God) likewise needs to be punished infinitely.
Proponents of the traditional view cite ten Bible texts, from which they develop three characteristics that support this view of hell. These three characteristics are final separation of humans from God, an unending experience of hell, and a just retribution for sin. This view has important implications. In this perspective, only the prospect of eternal, conscious torment adequately reminds us of our need to fear God, along with the urgency of evangelism.
Critics of the eternal conscious torment view point out that our emotional objections cannot simply be dismissed, because they arise from the image of God we possess. They also question whether the glory or value of God requires an infinite punishment, dismissing this assumption as both unbiblical and emotional. They disagree that hell is necessary to display God’s glory. Critics believe that proponents read too much into each of the Bible texts cited, weakening the strength of arguments for each of the three characteristics mentioned above. Further, proponents have not adequately considered, or have minimized, verses in the Bible that support other views. Disagree that hell is necessary to display God’s glory.
Overall, the eternal, conscious torment view of hell relies on the exegesis of biblical texts to make the case for what most Christians have always believed.
The terminal punishment view is also known best as “annihilationism.” It teaches that, rather than suffering eternal torment, those who are punished in hell will eventually be destroyed. Punishments for different people will last for different amounts of time, depending on how sinful they were. Then, when their punishment is complete, they will simply cease to exist.
The heart of the argument for terminal punishment revolves around the biblical words translated as “eternal” and “destruction.” These words, it is said, don’t always mean what we assume they mean when we read them in English. The argument is that the word “eternal” is often figuratively used, and that “eternal” punishment may refer, not to the eternal action of punishing, but to the eternal results of the action. At the same time, the words “death,” “destruction,” “perish” or “extinction” are used literally. The natural meanings of these words suggest finality rather than ongoing conscious existence. For example, “the lake of fire” in Revelation 20:14-15 is referred to as “the second death.”
Proponents of terminal punishment also point to several Bible passages that support their view over the eternal, conscious torment view. They hold that when Romans 6:23 says, “The wages of sin is death,” this is not meant in some spiritual sense, but refers to the actual cessation of life. They hold, based on the justice of God, that finite sin does not merit infinite punishment. They also point out that biblical passages used to support this view could just as easily be interpreted in favor of other views.
Critics of the terminal punishment view argue that too many Bible passages support the idea that the wicked will suffer never-ending torment in hell, and that the terminal punishment interpretation of such passages remains unconvincing. At best those passages could support either view, but are not absolutely in support of annihilation.
Overall, the terminal punishment view of hell takes biblical concepts like “eternal” and “destruction” seriously to strike a unique balance between God’s holiness and his benevolence.
This view of hell represents a sort of universalism, but based on Christian principles rather than secular pluralism. The idea is that God will ultimately reconcile all people to himself, even if there is a punishment to be endured at the end of the age. After Jesus returns, everyone will live in some sort of torment until they repent, and then they will live forever in eternal bliss.
Advocates of this view argue that several early church fathers thought this way. They cite Bible verses that say that God does not want anyone to perish (2 Peter 3:9) and that Jesus takes away the sin of the world (John 1:29). Their view is thus strongly centered on the atoning work of Christ. His death is so powerful that it is able to overcome and reverse human unbelief. They cite Romans 5:18, “Just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.” What does this second reference to “all people” mean? Yet this is not an “all roads lead to heaven” pluralism. The death and resurrection of Jesus are the only means God’s free gift of salvation is available to those who will repent and believe, both in this life and the next.
Yet the universalist understanding of hell is not based on examining specific biblical texts on hell, or on looking at the broader arc of Biblical theology. It is built mainly on deductive arguments rather than exegetical ones. They hold that universalism is the only system that makes sense within a Christian metanarrative. For example, the process of creation, God’s work of redemption, the founding of the church, the consummation of all events are most biblical when described from a universalist perspective.
Hell has an element of retributive justice, but it is not terminal or eternal. Hell also represents restorative justice. LIke God’s discipline toward Israel, it is more about “refinement” than “punishment.” God’s response to Israel’s unfaithfulness was never designed to terminate their existence, nor to inflict an indefinite duration of torment, but to shape a righteous people reformed from their idolatrous ways.
Critics of the Christian universalist view condemn what they believe is an unsound method of Bible interpretation that focuses too much on metanarrative and misses out on the exegesis of specific texts. For example, the word “all'' applied to salvation is not universal, but has restrictions. Texts that speak of God’s wrath against sin cannot be interpreted away. There is no biblical indication for a dual purpose for hell. Another criticism is that universalism violates the significance of human choices if it means that eventually everyone will turn to God.
Overall, the ultimate reconciliation view of hell brings the idea of universalism out of the realm of heresy and casts it thoughtfully as a biblical possibility.
Purgatory is a concept historically associated with Roman Catholicism. In this case an evangelical scholar offers up a new understanding of purgatory. This view is not actually a view on hell. It assumes that unbelievers will suffer everlasting, conscious punishment in hell. It deals with the afterlife awaiting the righteous rather than the wicked. Thus purgatory, in this approach, is not a middle place between heaven and hell, nor is it a second chance for sinners to be saved.
There is a crucial distinction between two different theological views of purgatory: satisfaction versus sanctification. The satisfaction view sees purgatory as exacting punishment, after this life is over, to pay a debt of justice. This approach was rejected by the Protestant Reformers. The sanctification view, by contrast, is about moral & spiritual transformation, after death but prior to heaven. The two views do not need to be linked.
Supporters of this theory admit that there is very little explicit biblical support for it, but that it is heavily implied, as a theological inference from other biblical doctrines. They use the doctrine of the Trinity as an illustration. The Bible never uses the word “Trinity,” or offers the detailed Nicene formulation of the doctrine. But it is built on two theological principles: the plurality of divine persons, and the singularity of God. Proponents do rely on scripture. When the Bible talks about the testing of our works, that refers to purgatory. Scripture also says that nothing unholy can enter heaven (Hebrews 12:14; Revelation 21:27). While payment for sin has been satisfied on the cross, believers must still be sanctified. Purgatory is a work of grace that completes this process.
Critics of the purgatory view argue that while purgatory might be possible, the Bible offers little evidence for it. This approach rarely relies on scripture, and it often misinterprets primary verses. Critics will point out that instant glorification is what makes us Christ-like after death, not purgatory.
Overall, the purgatory view of life after death revisions sanctification, separates purgatory from the Roman Catholic view, and makes it possible to reconsider purgatory in a biblical framework.
Ultimately, the takeaway from “Four Views on Hell” is that hell is real and has important implications for several other areas, including our view of salvation, our understanding of God’s character, and our practices of worship and evangelism. But this book insists that we must approach the issue from a commitment to the Bible rather than from arguments based on emotion or tradition.
In light of our culture’s mockery of God’s judgment, now more than ever Christians need to uphold the inspiration and authority of the Bible, and to know what it really says about hell, rather than relying on sentimental arguments. Our conclusions might be different, not because we deny biblical authority, but because we weigh the various pieces of evidence differently. For this reason, the book encourages readers to hold on loosely to their view of the nature of hell, as they consider other views in light of Scripture. Every reader will determine which one view represents the best interpretation of the biblical material. But even as we disagree, we can work to truly understand other points of view before seeking to refute them.