LIBERTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY

A CRITIQUE OF
“FOUR VIEWS ON HELL”

A Book Critique Submitted to

Liberty Theological Seminary,
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for completion of the course,

THEO 530
SYSTEMATIC THEOLOGY II

By
Laird Ballard

Middleboro, Massachusetts
October, 2009
 Table of Contents

I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 1

II. Brief Summary ...................................................................................................................... 1-3

III. Critical Interaction .............................................................................................................. 3-7

IV. Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 8

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 9

ii
 I. Introduction

The intention of this critique is two-fold. The first purpose will be to discuss the various

viewpoints presented in William Crockett’s book, The Four Views on Hell, one of twenty-three

such works from the Zondervan Counterpoints Series. In this member of the series, Crockett, a

professor at Alliance Theological Seminary, has called upon former Dallas Theological Seminary

President, John Walvoord; Zachary Hayes, formerly with the Catholic Theological Union; and

Clark Pinnock, Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College; to

offer their positions on the biblical view of hell.1 As the series title implies, discussions are

arranged in a point/counterpoint fashion, with one contributor offering his analysis, followed by

rebuttals from the remaining three. The second purpose, of this critique, will be to briefly

evaluate which contributor brought forth the most sustainable argument regarding the subject.

II. Summary

The first view considered is the literal view of hell, as presented by Walvoord, where all

biblical terminology regarding hell is to be taken as biblically stated, with the understanding that

“punishment for the wicked is everlasting and that it is punitive and not redemptive.” 2 Walvoord

believes that the Bible clearly teaches “that there is judgment for the unsaved after this life and

that this judgment continues over an extended period of time,” coinciding with the idea of

everlasting torment.3 One pivotal verse used, embracing both everlasting torment and correlated

also with the aspect of literal fire, is Isaiah 64:24, where it says of those who rebelled against

1
http://www.authorstream.com/Presentation/vectis-133722-four-views-hell-utube-spiritual-inspiratinal-ppt-
powerpoint/ (accessed September 15, 2009)

2
William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry eds., Four Views on Hell, (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996).
12.
3
Ibid., 15.

1
 2

the Lord that “their worm will die not, nor will their fire be quenched.” 4 Walvoord emphasizes

that the New Testament reinforces a literal understanding of this, citing along with other

examples, the parable of the sheep and the goats, from Matthew 25:31-46, where Jesus says that

the goats shall be cast “into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”5

The metaphorical view, presented by Crockett, leaves the eternal and punitive aspects of

hell intact, while at the same time denying that the imagery used regarding exact conditions is

meant to convey a literal eternal fire, where the damned are forever consigned. Rather, he says,

it is meant to offer the reader “imagery symbolizing…far worse than the symbols themselves.” 6

In essence, he claims that “the Bible does not support a literal view of a burning abyss” where

the wicked will eternally dwell.7

The purgatorial view, presented by Hayes, purports that souls, in the afterlife, “endure

some sort of remedial ‘fire,’ a fire that was to be understood in a metaphorical sense.” 8 Hayes

claims that “if our origin is ultimately in God, so is our destiny.” 9 For those souls who have died

in need of purification, to achieve this destiny, purgatory is a state or place where that condition

is remedied.10

The conditional view, as put forth by Pinnock, contends that “it is more scriptural,

theologically coherent, and practical to interpret the nature of hell as the destruction rather than

4
William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry eds., Four Views on Hell, 17.
5
Ibid., 21.
6
Ibid., 45.
7
Ibid., 45.
8
Ibid., 100-101.
9
Ibid., 91.
10
Ibid., 93.
 3

the endless torture of the wicked.”11 He contends “that God does not grant immortality to the

wicked to inflict endless pain upon them but will allow them finally to perish.”12 He casts aside

the traditional view of hell, claiming that the basic imagery of Scripture “overwhelmingly

denotes destruction” of the wicked, not their continuance.13

III. Critical Interaction

From the onset, one might conclude that the literal view is the most hermeneutically

sound assessment of the situation, embracing, as it does, all of the biblical terminology used in

the most direct fashion. Yet it is this very claim that is immediately called into question.

Crockett points out that maintaining a “high view of Scripture” does not negate the symbolic use

of words when describing various biblical phenomena.14 The strongest reason, he claims, for

taking the images of hell metaphorically “is the conflicting language used in the New Testament

to describe [it].”15 “How could hell be literal fire when it is also described as darkness?”16

On this point, one might question Crockett’s logic. Is not the universe itself comprised

primarily of vast darkness, punctuated by galaxies containing, amongst other things, stars, which

belch forth consuming fire? One need not suggest therefore, as does Walvoord, “that the crux of

the matter is whether prophecy should be interpreted literally.”17 Certainly there are few scholars

that posit the notion of a literal seven headed beast arising out of the sea, as described in

11
William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry eds., Four Views on Hell, 137.
12
Ibid., 142-143.
13
Ibid., 144-145.
14
Ibid., 50.
15
Ibid., 59.
16
Ibid.
17
Ibid., 78.
 4

Scripture.18 Thus the use of metaphor in describing biblical realities cannot be cast aside so

easily. Still, one hardly sees a disparity of truths being proposed when Jesus says that some shall

be “cast out into outer darkness: [where] there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth” (Matt

8:12), as a precursor to their eventually being subjected to a “fire that never shall be quenched:

Where their worm dieth not” (Mark 9:43-44).

Crockett’s position does, however, present a reasonable alternative to the literal view,

taking little away from the judgment meted out to the wicked, while remaining true to the

general tenor of the texts. Yet as Pinnock reminds readers, if the symbolic model is meant only

to bring forth a less sadistic version of hell, then Crockett has failed.19 The metaphorical model

has opted only for “a nonliteral version of hell as everlasting and conscious punishment.”20

Pinnock states that if Crockett claims “his nonliteral hell is less fearful, then a telling motive

surfaces: he wants to take the hell out of hell. But if Crockett means that hell (though nonliteral)

is not less fearful, then what has he gained.”21

One of Crockett’s more forceful points is made as he compares Revelation 20:15 with

Revelation 22:15. The first states that “whosoever was not found written in the book of life was

cast into the lake of fire.” The latter states that outside the gates of the New Jerusalem “are dogs,

and sorcerers, and whoremongers, and murderers, and idolaters, and whosoever loveth and

maketh a lie.” Unless these evildoers are abiding in the lake of fire, which is directly outside the

gates, then one would have to admit to some form of metaphor being used. Yet, as Crockett

states, the message remains clear. “Heaven and hell are real; one a place of immeasurable

18
Revelation 13:1
19
William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry eds., Four Views on Hell, 86.
20
Ibid.
21
Ibid., 87.
 5

happiness, the other of profound misery.”22 These are merely images meant to convey that

reality.

The purgatorial view seems to possess the least merit, resting only on three texts. The

first is from 2 Maccabees 12:41-46, where the last verse states: “Thus he made atonement for the

dead that they might be freed from this sin.”23 Coming, as it does, from an apocryphal writing,

this carries little weight amongst Protestant believers. Still, it does establish that, during the

intertestamental period, certain members of the Jewish community held to the willingness of God

to remit sins even after death.

Hayes draws next on Matthew 12:31-32, with Jesus discussing blasphemy against the

Holy Spirit. He suggests that if blasphemy against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven even in

the age to come, the door has been opened so that “some sins could be forgiven in the next

world.”24 Here, it is probably best to see this as rabbinic hyperbole, with Jesus merely reinforcing

the truth that such blasphemy will never be forgiven, and not suggesting that other sins can be

forgiven in the next life.25 Similarly, Hayes’ use of 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 falls short since the

verses in no wise indicate “that the judgment is remedial; the bad works declared to be burned up

relate to rewards, not to one’s eternal salvation.”26

Hayes’ defense of a purgatorial hell seems based largely on a longing to embrace the

salvific theory of universal restoration, proposed by Origen, who felt that “at some point in the

22
William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry eds., Four Views on Hell, 76.
23
Ibid., 104.
24
Ibid., 105.
25
Ibid., 51.
26
Ibid., 120.
 6

future, all things will be restored to their original condition and intended state.” 27 This, he

claims, being the meaning behind Colossians 1:19-20 which speaks of God’s reconciliation of

“all things unto himself.” For those who die still in need of purification, there will be a

separation from God, described by the metaphors assigned to descriptions of hell. In as much as

“its purpose is purification, that end can be realized without eternal punishment.” 28

This theory does little justice to passages such as Revelation 14:11 where it says that “the

smoke of their torment ascendeth up forever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night.” Or

to Isaiah 33:14, where sinners are told to consider those who “shall dwell with the devouring

fire…with everlasting burnings.” In the end, Hayes’ theory fails to meet the test of the fullness

of Scripture, depending, as it does, on too few verses to make its case.

Lastly, is the annihilationist view proposed by Pinnock. His opposition to the literal and

metaphorical positions seems lodged primarily in the disparity he sees between the revelation of

God, as seen in Christ, who said love your enemies, and a God who would “wreak vengeance on

his enemies for all eternity.”29 Since the literal and metaphorical views both hold to an

everlasting conscious torment of the lost, he suggests that belief in either calls into question “the

moral goodness of God;” hence his rationale in arguing for their ultimate destruction.30

His foundational claim is that the human soul does not inherently possess immortality.31

Consequently, it “is not an immortal substance that has to be placed somewhere if it rejects

27
Millard J. Erickson, Christian Theology. 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007), 1027-1028.
28
Ibid., 1025

29
William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry eds., Four Views on Hell, 140.
30
Ibid.
31
Ibid., 148.
 7

God.”32 God, he says, can and will in fact “destroy both soul and body in hell.”33

The operative word in that verse is apollumi, and carries the meaning of “to destroy

utterly.”34 Only if used metaphorically does it denote anything less.35 This is a strong point in

favor of his argument. Unfortunately for Pinnock, Jesus uses a lot of metaphors. He refers to

himself as a door, his people as sheep, and his opponents occasionally as whited sepulchers. To

assume he might be doing the same in Matthew 10:28 is not beyond reason.

After addressing additional points, which he feels plead for the ultimate destruction of the

wicked, he poses the following question: “What purpose of God would be served by the

unending torture of the wicked except those of vengeance and vindictiveness?”36 The answer

seems to lie in ones understanding of the immortality of the soul, or lack thereof. If the soul is

not immortal, then his point is well taken. If the soul is immortal, it becomes a less forceful

question.

If the soul is immortal, possessing consciousness after death, and cannot be ultimately

consumed nor its sensory apparatus rendered inoperative, perhaps, out of necessity it must be

forever consigned to eternal fire. It is not God’s desire. It is simply an unalterable truth. That

believers in this life might not fully comprehend all that pertains to such a reality is not important

if that is the reality that exists.

32
William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry eds., Four Views on Hell, 148.

33
Matt 10:28
34
W. E. Vine, and others, Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words
(Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996), 164.
35
Joseph Henry Thayer, Thayer's Greek Lexicon, (Electronic Database, Biblesoft, Inc., 2003).
36
William Crockett and Stanley N. Gundry eds., Four Views on Hell, 153.
 8

IV. Conclusions

Each of the respective authors brought forth powerful arguments to support their cause,

the least forceful of these being the purgatorial position posited by Hayes. Depending, as he did,

primarily on the teachings of the Catholic Church, as an ongoing revelatory process standing side

by side with Scripture, did little to support his case. Couple this with the few and questionable

references he brought forth, and credibility fades.

Pinnock’s position, although supported by numerous arguments heralding “everlasting

destruction” as the cessation of all life, hinges primarily on his view regarding the immortality of

the soul. Both Hayes and Pinnock seemingly attempt to “take the hell out of hell” by reducing

its longevity. Hayes does so by making it remedially effective, allowing for eventual release and

Pinnock by declaring that existence of the wicked has a finite ending.

All that remains are the views of Walvoord or Crockett. Both interpretations appear

workable. The traditional view obviously contains merit because it takes the literal wording to

mean exactly what it states and the metaphorical because it only alters the descriptive exactness

without reducing the penalty. Still the overwhelming evidence seems to lie with the traditional

view, bringing as it does the full weight of biblical witness to bear on the subject.
 Bibliography

Crockett, William, and Stanley N. Gundry, eds. Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 1996.

Erickson, Millard J., Christian Theology, 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2007.

Thayer, Joseph Henry, Thayer's Greek Lexicon. [Electronic Database]. Biblesoft, Inc., 2003.

Vine, W. E., Merrill F. Unger, and William White Jr. Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of
Old and New Testament Words. Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1996.