Chapter 18 – Three Views: A Summary

It was first period around 8:00 a.m. when a student in the back of the class raised his hand and asked, “How can a loving God who knows people will reject him, create those people knowing that they will end up in hell forever?” Only a Bible teacher could be asked that question at that hour.

Since his query assumed the eternal conscious torment view, I proceeded by explaining annihilationism. “What if the wicked are destroyed—they cease to exist? Would that help?” I asked.

He thought about it then responded, “Kind of, but . . . it still doesn’t make much sense. Why would God make them in the first place if he knew they would be destroyed?”

I didn’t mention ultimate redemption, but if I could do it over again, I would include it in our discussion.

Three Views

Like my former student, many assume one view of hell because they haven’t heard other perspectives. I hope this book has clearly presented the three major views of hell in Christian history. Here’s a brief summary of these theories.

• Everlasting Prison – the wicked will be separated from all goodness and suffer the pain of eternal conscious torment.
• Incinerator– the wicked will be annihilated. Ultimate destruction may be preceded by conscious suffering.
• Refinery – the wicked will experience a painful purification process that will eventually lead to their ultimate salvation in Christ.[i] This view is expressed in two forms—hopeful and confident.

Common Ground

What do the three views have in common? First, all affirm that salvation is only found in Christ. Although ultimate reconciliation extends the period of repentance into the afterlife, the essential role of Christ is maintained. Second, technically none are focused on the intermediate state. Christian thinking has traditionally inserted the resurrection of the dead and final judgment prior to our ultimate destiny. Third, all agree that the wicked will suffer. No respected Christian thinker has ever claimed that unrepentant evildoers will get away with anything. The Bible is filled with divine disapproval of human sin and the law of reciprocity. As Paul says, “God cannot be mocked. A man reaps what he sows” (Gal 6:7). He continues by explaining that if we sow to please our flesh, or our self-centered appetites, we will reap destruction, but if we sow to please God’s Spirit, we will reap eternal life. The proud will have a different experience than the humble because “God opposes the proud but shows favor to the humble” (Jas 4:6; 1 Pet 5:5; Prov 3:34).

Eternal Conscious Torment

In my opinion, the revelation of God in Christ conflicts with the idea of endless torment. I can’t see a correspondence between the Augustinian view of hell—the wicked will never get out—and the character of Christ. It just doesn’t sound like him. It sounds like a violent person thirsty for revenge who will never be appeased. How can this concept be true if “God is love,” “his anger lasts only a moment” (Ps 30:5), and “mercy triumphs over judgment” (Jas 2:13)?

Further, if my analysis is correct, there is no place in Scripture that affirms eternal conscious torment. Additionally, explicit biblical statements point us in another direction.

Many attempt to soften the harshness of infernalism by emphasizing the human will. Rather than God punishing people forever, evildoers have chosen to be there and they continue in their state of rebellion for eternity. But the idea that people choose to be punished forever is not found in Scripture nor is the idea that people persist in raging against God for all eternity.

In fact, the New Testament explicitly contradicts this idea because every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord (Phil 2:9–11). The Greek word translated “confess” is used ten times in the New Testament and not once refers to a forced gritting-your-teeth concession. It is used for voluntary confession of sins, praise and thanksgiving (Mk 1:5; Matt 11:25; Lk 10:21). Thomas Talbott writes,

Those who bow before Jesus Christ and declare openly that he is Lord either do so sincerely and by their own choice or they do not. If they do so sincerely and by their own choice, then there can be but one reason—they too have been reconciled to God. And if they do not do so sincerely and by their own choice, if they are instead forced to make obeisance against their will, then their actions are merely fraudulent and bring no glory to God. A Hitler may take pleasure in forcing his defeated enemies to make obeisance against their will, but a God who honors the truth could not possibly participate in such a fraud.[ii]

If all freely acknowledge Christ’s supremacy in the end, how can people stubbornly resist God for all eternity?

In addition to lacking biblical support, the thought of eternal conscious torment is unbearable. Instead of making the gospel an attractive and joyful message, the teaching of eternal torment makes it an overwhelming message of grief and despair. Francis Xavier (1506–1552) writes,

One of the things that most of all pains and torments these Japanese is, that we teach them that the prison of hell is irrevocably shut, so that there is no egress therefrom. For they grieve over the fate of their departed children, of their parents and relatives, and they often show their grief by their tears.

So they ask us if there is any hope, any way to free them by prayer from that eternal misery, and I am obliged to answer that there is absolutely none. Their grief at this affects and torments them . . . they almost pine away with sorrow . . . They often ask if God cannot take their fathers out of hell, and why their punishment must never have an end. . . .

I can hardly restrain my tears sometimes at seeing men so dear to my heart suffer such intense pain about a thing which is already done with and can never be undone.[iii]

Likewise, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) says, “I can indeed hardly see how anyone ought to wish Christianity to be true; for is so . . . my father, brother and almost all my best friends, will be everlastingly punished.”[iv] Granted, infernalism is not the only component that caused this grief. It is the Augustinian view of hell combined with specific certainty of who is destined for the flames. Nevertheless, eternal conscious torment is a key element contributing to such despair.

Annihilationism

Annihilitionism is appealing because it has significant biblical support, and it asks readers to do a simple thing: interpret the words death, perish, and destruction literally.

What about Jesus? Does annihilationism link with Jesus’ life? The data is limited. The only thing Jesus destroys in the Gospels is a fig tree (Mk 11:12–21). The morning after Jesus cursed the tree, the disciples saw that it was “withered from the roots” (v. 20). Thus, its destruction was final. Additionally, Jesus gave people the option to follow or forsake him and he honored their choice. When people walked away, he didn’t beg them to stay (Mk 10:22–23; Jn 6:66). And since Jesus is life, walking away from him means walking toward non-life or death. Is that a hint of support for the ultimate destruction of sinners?

Hopeful Christian Universalism

Hopeful Christian universalism affirms that we have reason to believe and hope that all will be saved. I see this as part of what it means to bless and pray for all people as Jesus commanded, including our enemies. If we are genuinely praying for people to be blessed by God, doesn’t that mean wanting them to enjoy the pleasure of God forever? Don’t you want everyone to be genuinely reconciled to God and to each other in the end? Can you imagine a better ending? If you are holding a grudge against someone, this thought experiment would be a good time to forgive that person and imagine enjoying their company.

At this point, I should mention an argument made by Hart: hopeful universalists believe universal salvation is the best possible ending so they should go the next step and believe God can make this ending a reality.[v] He calls the posture of hopeful universalism “intellectual timidity.”[vi]

Christian Universalism

The permanency of God’s love, the impermanency of God’s wrath, the remedial nature of divine judgment, and explicit statements of cosmic unity point to a single universal outcome. Like annihilationism, this view asks readers for a modest favor: interpret “all” as all.

Does ultimate reconciliation correlate with Christ’s life? Jesus certainly taught about an afterlife separation of the righteous and wicked, but would that be followed by final reconciliation? Perhaps we can see a clue in Jesus’ relationship with his disciples. Although they repeatedly failed him—Peter even denied him three times—Jesus remained faithful to his fallen followers. Their sin couldn’t stop his love. Similarly, Jesus describes God as the ever-welcoming Father, even of his sinful children (Lk 15:11–32).

The death of Christ may be the greatest argument for Christian universalism: the Son of God came down to earth and allowed himself to be completely humiliated, beaten, and nailed to a cross. While on the cross Jesus prayed, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing” (Lk 23:34). Who was he praying for? Those who put him in that horrifying place—Judas, Pilate, the crowd who demanded his execution, the soldiers who nailed him to the cross, the people who mocked him. Could anyone be more antagonistic to Christ that this group of people? And yet Jesus loved and prayed for them as he taught his followers to do: “love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (Matt 5:44). So here’s the question: Will the Son of God’s prayer be answered? Will the Father extend forgiveness at his Son’s request? A few hours later darkness came over the land, then Jesus surrendered to his Father and died. If he did all this to reach sinners, what won’t he do?

Universalism also makes sense of many things. Allow me to mention two. First, God’s glory. Think of the worst person you know personally or from history. What would result in the most praise to God, that person’s complete obliteration or their total transformation? When I envision that person serving others out of genuine love and joy, I am directed toward a universal conclusion. Second, God’s bliss or happiness. What would make God—the One who wants all to be saved—the happiest: the destruction of some humans or the salvation of all humans? If God is a loving Father to all, the answer is obvious.

Combinations

What about a combination between different views? As we have seen, certain ancient rabbis believed that while some are sealed in hell, others cry and howl for a time while being refined then ascend.[vii] C. S. Lewis also attempts to merge ideas when he describes hell as “the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity.”[viii] This sounds similar to comments Lewis writes in another work: “For a damned soul is nearly nothing: it is shrunk, shut up in itself.”[ix] A person who “fades away into nonentity” sounds like someone who gradually ceases to exist. Although the process may be extensive, their ultimate fate is extinction. But Lewis also reasons that since the destruction of one thing leads to something else, such as burning a log results in gas, heat, and ash, the destruction of the human soul must lead to something else. The soul must be transferred to another state. So what is the final state of a person who “fades away”? Absolute nonexistence or mere nonexistence as a human? Lewis doesn’t say and he acknowledges that he is only speculating in this section.

Although particular combinations may be possible to some extent, at the core, a conflict exists between a single outcome or a double outcome.

Summary

Christian history has given us three major views of hell: an everlasting prison, an incinerator, and a refinery. It’s important to see the distinctions between these views, but we should also recognize where they overlap with each other.

—————

[i] For a more detailed biblical examination of each of the three views see Gregg, All You Want to Know about Hell.

[ii] Talbott, 65.

[iii] Quoted in George W. Sarris, Heaven’s Doors, Wider Than You Ever Believed! (Trumbell, CT: GWS, 2017), 190.

[iv] Quoted in Beauchemin, 46.

[v] Ibid., 66.

[vi] Ibid., 102.

[vii] See “Gehenna” in Jewish Encyclopedia (1906), accessed September 17, 2017, http://jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/6558-gehenna.

[viii] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York: HarperCollins, 1940), chap. 8.

[ix] Lewis, The Great Divorce, 139.