Liberty Baptist Theological Seminary

A THEOLOGICAL CRITIQUE OF FOUR VIEWS ON HELL STANLEY N. GUNDRY AND WILLIAM CROCKET, EDITORS

Submitted to Dr. Keith Church in partial completion of course requirements for THEO 530 Systematic Theology II

Jeffrey D. Cole Robbinsville, NC June 27, 2010

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................3 THESIS...................................................................................................................3 THE LITERAL VIEW....................................................................................................................4 THE METAPHORICAL VIEW......................................................................................................5 THE PURGATORIAL VIEW.........................................................................................................6 THE CONDITIONAL VIEW..........................................................................................................7 INTERACTION WITH AUTHOR.................................................................................................7 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................10 BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................................12

INTRODUCTION Hell, like heaven, is one of those subjects void of any personal first-hand accounts to authenticate the veracity of each.1 And even the first-hand account that can be cited, the rich man and Lazarus of Luke 16, is open for debate. Hell was a topic frequently discussed by Jesus, commonly addressed in the New Testament, abundant in the Old Testament, and is a topic of great emotion and debate. Adding to this debate is Four Views of Hell, a work that has sold an abundance of copies and has undergone multiple printings. The content and its format are sure to blame for its popularity. In this 190 page work, William Crocket has combined the views of four writertheologians together to provide a reader friendly resource that clearly explains the four most popular understandings of hell and the popular objections to each. The four popular views of hell and the presenting scholar of each are: the literal view presented by John F. Walvoord, former President of Dallas Theological Seminary and best selling evangelical Christian author; the metaphorical view, presented by William V. Crockett, professor of New Testament at Alliance Theological Seminary; the purgatorial view, presented by Zachary J. Hayes, retired teacher of theology at the Catholic Theological Union; the conditional view, presented by Clark H. Pinnock, Professor of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College. THESIS

Crockett, p. 45. Crocket states When it comes to the afterlife, only the dead know for sure.

The position that an individual defends regarding the nature of hell is primarily explained by their hermeneutic.2 The application of a grammatical historical, Roman Catholic, or trajectory interpretation techniques employed because of an individuals presupposition about the Scripture will result in one of one of the four popular views of hell. POSITION ONE: THE LITERAL VIEW (DR. JOHN F. WALVOORD) Dr. Walvoord, an evangelical dispensational scholar, theologian, and scholar, employs a grammatical-historical interpretation of Scripture, which believes that God intends every structure, paragraph, sentence, letter, and punctuation to define the literal meaning of the text. Historical and cultural considerations contribute, but do not determine, the meaning of the text. Consequently, Dr. Walvoord interprets hell to be a literal3place of physical, mental, and emotional torture4 for the wicked5, punitive in nature rather than redemptive,6 literally and consciously7 forever in the flames of a fiery lake8. Such eternal punishment, argues Walvoord, is perfectly consistent with the nature of both sin and God - sin that is infinitely offensive must be infinitely punished by an infinitely holy and righteous God.9 From a human standpoint, the punishment that Walvoord's interpretation of Scripture demands should be a source of sorrow in every human heart.10 To support his position, Walvoord depends upon the meaning of words employed in the text of Scripture, and spends significant time explaining their original intended meanings.
2 3

Ibid, p. 14. Walvoord states, Ultimately the question is, What does the bible teach? Ibid, p. 28. 4 Ibid. 5 Ibid, p. 17. 6 Ibid, p. 12. 7 Ibid, p. 29 8 Ibid, p. 23. 9 Ibid, p. 27. 10 Ibid, p. 29.

Walvoord only slightly refers to historical or cultural understandings; primarily in understanding the nature of the Greek term gehenna.11 POSITION TWO: THE METAPHORICAL VIEW (WILLIAM CROCKETT) Dr. William Crockett, a graduate of Princeton Seminary, tempers a grammatical historical interpretation of Scripture weighted more heavily toward cultural and historical interpretation than Walvoord. With statements like, the new testament writers do not intend their words to be taken literally12, and in ancient times teachers often used words symbolically to underscore their points13 Dr. Crockett elevates the role of culture, author intent, and historical factors in a way that Walvoord doesnt. The position of the metaphorical view is quite the same as the literal view, except for the nature of the eternal punishment. Dr. Crockett is very deliberate and precise in his defense of a metaphorical, non-literal interpretation of hells punishment, writing that the Bible does not support a literal view of a burning abyss Hellfire and brimstone are not literal depictions of hells furnishing, but figurative expressions warning the wicked of impending doom.14 Impressively, Crockett has great historical figures of the church to substantiate his argument, figures like John Calvin, Martin Luther, J.I. Packer, and Billy Graham, as well as other notable modern figures, like Charles Hodge and Kenneth Kantzer. Agreeing with the literalists that hell, a place of frightful judgment, is real. But the teaching of Jesus and the Scripture is imagery intended to convey symbolic imagery of

11 12

Ibid, p. 20. Ibid, p. 30. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid, p.44.

punishment that is not literally occurring with the furnishings the words describe,15 but that fact in no way undermines the punishment in fact. POSITION THREE: THE PURGATORIAL VIEW (ZACHARY J. HAYES) The defense of purgatory is the emphasis of Zachary J. Hayes discussion of the Catholic theology of hell that is not commonly shared by other Christian churches. Whereas some traditionally see hell as a fact, others a possibility, and still others a situation that will ultimately be overcome.16, the Roman Catholic theology would explain its being overcome by the doctrine of purgatory, that state, place, or condition in the next world between heaven and hell, a state of purifying suffering for those who have died and are still in need of such purification.17 This state of purgatory ends when the guilt of the person has been adequately suffered for. This doctrine is determined by a commitment to the principles of Catholic interpretation established by Pius XII in the Divino Afflante Spiritu, which are historico-grammatical interpretation, Catholic interpretation, reverence, inerrancy, and patristics.18 As such, the Scriptures are interpreted in the context of catholic doctrine, previous statements and writings of Popes, and the Catholic Church. Consequently, the bulk of Zachary Hayes defense is in reference to historical Catholic interpretations and understanding, including Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI. Is it a precise teaching of Scripture? Zachary Hayes explains his interpretive principle when he answers, whether the doctrine of purgatory can be defended as having any basis in Scripture

15 16

Ibid, pp. 30 - 31 Ibid, p. 92. 17 Ibid. p. 93 18 Divino Afflante Spirito. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_pxii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html, accessed June 27, 2010.

will depend upon on how one approaches the Bible and understands revelation.19 While Hayes concedes that there is no clear textual basis in Scripture for the later doctrine of purgatory, neither is there anything that is clearly contrary to that doctrine.20 Given the interpretive principles that Hayes is employing, silence is a foundation to his understanding of hell. POSITION FOUR: THE CONDITIONAL VIEW (CLARK H. PINNOCK) Clark Pinnock does not question the reality of hell,21 but interprets the nature of hell and the final suffering of the wicked in a superior way22, as self destruction, closure with God, and absolute death in body, soul, and spirit23. As he explains further, Pinnock prefers a total annihilation ending existence at the time of the second death, wherein God mercifully does not grant immortality to the wicked.24 The interpretation of hell and punishment is better interpreted as total annihilation in the light of the love and justice of God.25 In defense of his annihilation position of hell, Pinnock cites historical figures questioning the orthodox understanding of hell, such as C.S. Lewis, John Stott, and Hans Kung. INTERACTION WITH AUTHOR Walvoord correctly frames the nature of the debate when stating, It is possible to provide almost endless quotations from the early Fathers up to modern theologians who believe in eternal punishment and who do not. Though a study of these opinions is informative, it really proves nothing except that there was been diversity of opinion from the beginning. However,
19 20

Ibid, p. 101. Ibid, p. 107. 21 Ibid, p. 135. 22 Ibid, p. 137. 23 Ibid, p. 137. 24 Ibid, p. 142. 25 Ibid, pp. 151 153.

that diversity is clearly linked to the question of whether the Bible exegetically teaches punishment, and, if so, whether the Bible should be believed. Ultimately, the question is What does the Bible teach?26 With this statement Walvoord is elevating exegesis, that is ones approach to the interpretation of Scripture as the primary defining element in the debate. I concur. Walvoord attempts to interpret the Scriptures in a historical grammatical sense, elevating the meaning of the text apart from other emotional, pshychological, cultural, or personal influences. Though not a pleasant doctrine, humanly speaking, Walvoord does not back down from the Orthodox position because of his exegetical principles require him to do so. The same cannot be said of the others. Instead, emotional arguments and judgments of intent are used to defend positions. In Pinnocks refutation of Walvoord, he states that the literalist view of hell makes God out to be worse than Hilter,27 or that an individual holding to a literalist position would cause many to turn away from Christianity.28 Crockett employs the same absurd claims, claiming that literalists are embarrassed to defend their position, and their silence is a dirty little fact within the Christian church.29 At other times, he makes judgments about the intent of the biblical authors in their writing, stating that the biblical writers did not intend their writings to be taken literally.30 I question seriously the ability of an author to claim ability to interpret authors intent or the motive of literalists, and to somehow provide this as a basis for his argument.
26 27

Ibid, p. 14. Ibid, p. 38. 28 Ibid, p. 39. 29 Ibid, p. 43 - 44 30 Ibid, p. 30.

Furthermore, Crockett picks and chooses that which he interprets the intent of the writer to be literal and that which is not intended to be literal. Hell and its reality are interpreted as intended to be literal by the author. However fire and brimstone is not intended by the biblical author as intended to be literal. Clearly Crockett is operating under a different set of interpretive rules than Walvoord, a set of rules that subjects the revealed Scripture to the mind of the reader, rather than the reader to the mind of God. With regard to Hayes, he professes to be operating an alternate interpretation to which some Christians31, however, his method of exegesis is not orthodox Christian. Can a means of Scriptural interpretation that is not orthodox lead to an understanding of hell that is orthodox? No, other than by random chance. It is an unrealistic expectation to expect a Catholic theologian referencing Catholic patristic fathers, the priority of the Catholic Church over the text of Scripture, and the Apocrypha, to be taken seriously as a legitimate orthodox Christian defense of hell. Pinnock, on the other hand, in his defense of annihilation, is open about his motive. He begins by citing the unrealistic expectation for the general public to believe and be attracted to a belief system that would hold fast to a literal position of hell and punishment. The traditional view of hell, states Pinnock, has been a stumbling block for believers and an effective weapon in the hands of skeptics for use against the faith.32 In fact, similar to Crockett who states the embarrassment of literalists, Pinnock states that seldom is the doctrine of a literal hell heard from a literalist pulpit anymore because the danger of proclaiming the position has become so archaic and dangerous, giving evidence that its silent supporters are, at best, unenthusiastic about the

31 32

Ibid, p. 92. Ibid, p. 136.

position even though it remains something necessary to defend in their ranks. Pinnock, therefore, raises pragmatism as a primary factor in his argument, minimizing the grammatical historical exegesis. Furthermore, Pinnock questions the nature of God who on the one hand is Abba Father, yet on the other hand unmercifully assigns the wicked to eternal flames and torment. Pinnock is unable to reconcile the mercy of God with the justice of God, stating instead that the literalist interpretation of hell is better attributed to Satan rather than to God!33 Despite the deficiencies in the exegesis employed by the majority in arguing their position, the book is extremely helpful in understanding the nature of the weakness in the metaphorical, purgatorial, and conditional views. The weakness lies in their understanding on how the Scripture is to be interpreted. The basis of authority is different for each person as they present their argument, therefore, it makes it nearly impossible to have a discussion that is able to persuade one of the others position, for the very foundation of the positions are different. CONCLUSION An individuals view of hell is determined by many factors: exegesis of Scripture, beliefs of authority, emotion, biases, judgments of motives, to name a few. Ultimately, an interpretation that is not founded on a literal grammatical historical interpretation of Scripture is flawed. The highest authority must be presumed to rest in the revealed Word of God, and not in un-reconciled thinking of the nature of God, logical conclusions that are uncomfortable, teaching that is unattractive to the unregenerate, or church systems of theology and doctrine.

33

Ibid, p. 140.

10

The Four Views of Hell is instructive and worth reading for the student and lay believer to affirm their own belief in a literalist position of hell and to understand the weaknesses of the alternate positions.

11

BIBLIOGRAPHY Crockett, William. Four Views of Hell. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996). Divino Afflante Spirito. (http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_pxii_enc_30091943_divino-afflante-spiritu_en.html, accessed June 27, 2010.

12