The four Views of Hell a Book Review

Summary: The book, The Four Views of Hell presents the theological viewpoints of John F. Walvoord, Zachary J. Hayes, William V Crockett, and Clark H. Pinnock on the subject of the existence of Hell and eternal punishment. The primary question the book attempts to answer is; does a literal Hell exist? JohnWalvoord initiates the debate with his presentation of the literal view scripture portrays. Walvoord in support of the literal view presents a lengthy discussion defining the various terms used for Hell, Gehenna, and Sheol. His arguments are clear, securely founded in scripture, and convincing Walvoord succinctly builds a foundation and lays out the framework utilizing word studies and contextual exegesis. Walvoord simultaneously tackles the question in the back of everyone’s mind. “How can one harmonize the concept of a loving gracious God with a God who is righteous and unforgiving?” ? How can the God of Love welcome one person to heaven and condemn the next to eternal damnation without any opportunity for a second chance? Both the Old and New Testament teach that for those whom are judged righteous the life after physical death is one of peace and joy. In contrast, Jesus states for the unrighteous there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Walvoord accurately points out the real issue is not the subject of hell and eternal punishment. The problem appears to be more a reluctance of theologians to accurately present the truth. There are primary issues with the subject of hell that each person must come to decisive conclusions about. First, one must decide and come to a conclusion of biblical inerrancy and infallibility or not. The other primary issue is accurate comprehension of what the scriptures are actually conveying to the reader. Eternal punishment is a concept that is a hard pill to swallow for anyone. Contrarily there seems to be no hesitation from theologians to discuss the blessedness of heaven. Ministers feel the pressure to only speak of the positive messages in the Bible. Initial reactions to hell are usually twofold. The first is, “of course there is a real literal hell but we must ignore it and the other is outright denial. Many people seem to choose the second route. Both of these conclusions are usually reached without a serious consideration of the scriptures. As a theological consideration, hell has probably been beat to death with analysis but with the wrong stick. Theologians have haggled over hell since the beginning of time. Life after death has been a settled subject for thousands of years. The subject of controversy is what the nature of that life is. Will it be eternal death or eternal reward? And bliss. Walvoord expresses the hope that punishment will somehow be shortened or terminated. Out of this literal translation of scripture has developed several competing views. For the sake of brevity those views are the literal view, the metaphorical view, the purgatorial view, and a conditional view. The problem with hell is very similar with the problem with the problem with evil. Many are too fearful to accept hell for what it is and therefore become busy bodies attempting to downplay the real possibility. As a result of fear some theologians and preachers begin to water down the scripture to make it more palatable. Scripture is clear that the wicked and unrighteous will be punished and that by unquenchable fire and then there is the second death.


The first attempt at watering down scripture is argued by William Crockett as he attempts to persuade the reader all of the scriptures that mention fire in connection with eternal punishment do not really mean literal fire. It is only symbolic, a Metaphor. According to Crockett’s arguments, literal fire in scripture really depends on what the meaning of the word “is” is. Crockett somehow knows thousands of years later, what exactly the writers of the New Testament really meant. If only they would clue the rest of us in. The writers did not really mean everlasting punishment by fire; they really meant something else but similar or maybe something entirely different altogether like being eternally chased by the Stay-Puff Marshmallow Man from the movie “Ghostbusters” who continuously throws burnt smores at the unrepentant. Crockett states “the writers of the New Testament were not concerned so much with the exact nature of hell as they were with the seriousness of coming judgment” I assure you an eternal supply of smores is serious business. In order to accept the metaphorical view one must believe that Jesus did not mean what he said when he described hell. It is recognized the following quote is utilized too frequently but it becomes appropriate out of necessity. Famous scholar George R. Beasley Murray stated; “There’s all the difference in the world between believing that the Bible merely contains the Word of God and believing that the Bible is the word of God. One way you are free to pick and choose what parts of the bible you wish to accept and follow and deem authoritative. But if you believe the Bible is the Word of God, then I’m afraid it’s a whole different matter, isn’t it. Then you must accept the Bible both when you like what it says and when you don’t. Then poignantly he added: of course there’s a price to pay for either one you choose. Obviously many people do not believe the Bible to be the word of God because they cannot or will not accept what it says about hell.”Then this debate really comes down to the debate of inerrancy. Choosing the orthodox /literal view does not make things easier but choosing the metaphorical or conditional view seems to leave too many holes in the boat. Jesus warned us to build our house upon the rock and not sand. Certain preachers and theologians do not like the concept of hell. They are picking and choosing only the pieces and parts of scripture they like. The metaphorical view leaves too much unsettled for interpretation. “Crockett once again jumps into his time machine and states emphatically the biblical writers do not intend their words to be taken literally.” Reader response criticism plainly just does not have a firm foundation upon which to stand. Jesus always said that faith in him would require sacrifices. Walvoord points out that the detractors from the literal view follow a purely theological and philosophical path and not an exegetical path. Those who do not support the inerrancy of scripture can easily pick and choose their way around until the bible no longer even mentions the word hell. Crockett of course presents no evidence for his assertion. To add insult to injury, Crockett emphatically states “the biblical writers do not intend their words to be taken literally” as if he can read their minds or they directly told him what their intentions are. Crockett claims to even know how all Christians feel about hell and has determined that Christians are somehow embarrassed by the subject. Crockett is actually imposing his own feelings upon all Christianity. Surely Jesus jests when he said there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. Crockett implies Jesus is lying about his descriptions of hell. If Jesus is lying about hell, what else is he lying about? Maybe Jesus is lying about the resurrection and heaven as well. Maybe there is not any reconciliation after all and we are all going to hell. The metaphorical house is sinking quickly is it not? Maybe salvation is really metaphorical along with the rest of the New Testament.

Analysis:

The remaining viewpoints are the purgatorial and the conditional views. With all respect to our Catholic brethren; the purgatorial view relies upon one section of extra biblical writings that are not accepted as canon by Protestants or the Jewish canon. This hardly qualifies as authoritative. Walvoord stated early in the book the problem with the other views of hell argued in this book is that they are founded upon philosophical grounds and are not scripturally sound. SolaScriptura has been the standard for biblical interpretation since the reformation. It continues to be so. Finally we have Clark Pinnock and the conditional view. With all due respect to Mr. Pinnock and his recent departure from this life; everything in his latter theology became conditional and not exactly arguable from scripture. In order to seriously consider the conditional view of hell the inerrancy and infallibility of scripture must be ignored and completely denied. I’m certain that Mr. Pinnock’s section will be removed from this book in the future. Without a foundation built upon rock, the house will fall and great will be its destruction. This book purports to be for general audience reading. The topic itself and how it is presented do not allow for general reading. The language used by the various authors is not difficult reading but the layout of the book can be confusing requiring advanced readers with an advanced education in order to keep track of where the discussion is and where it is leading. As stated, all of the views presented on hell except Walvoord are based upon philosophical arguments and are without scriptural foundation. These types of arguments can confuse the readership looking for authoritative answers to the questions posed. The book jumps back and forth between the four different viewpoints, becoming another stumbling block of understanding for the readership. A similar point is made by all the authors which needs to at least be seriously considered. No one this side of death knows hells realities though Mr. Pinnock does now and maybe no one should be guessing or speculating. But in the absence of primary knowledge maybe it is best to stick to the literal view of scripture which is grim indeed. It would be better to adhere to the literal view and be right than to adhere to one of the other views and be wrong.

Conclusion:

The format is unnecessary. There are other books covering different topics in the same series. These books are not recommended simply because of the format style. Ultimately this book is not about hell but about biblical inerrancy and infallibility. That is the subject that has to be firmly settled in the heart before tackling an issue like hell. Sola Scriptura must be firmly planted in the heart and mind before wrestling with the philosophical ramblings that are presented in this book. The Four Views of Hell receives solid thumbs down from this reviewer.