Four Views on Hell

In multiple view books, there are often some design flaws. Whether they are because a major viewpoint is left out, or one or more of the authors is not considered as prominent as others in the book, thus putting their argument at a disadvantage, the books are often tilted one way or another. Four Views on Hell avoids most of these flaws. John Walvoord was the president of Dallas Theological Seminary for 34 years and is a prolific dispensational writer. William Crockett is a retired Anglican minister and is Professor Emeritus of Vancouver School of Theology. Friar Zachary Hayes studied under Pope Benedict XVI and currently teaches at Catholic Theological in Chicago. Clark Pinnock is a noted evangelical author supporting open theism and is Professor Emeritus of Systematic Theology at McMaster Divinity College. The four viewpoints discussed include the Literal View by Dr. Walvoord, the Metaphorical View by Dr. Crockett, the Purgatorial View by Friar Hayes, and the Conditional View by Dr. Pinnock. The Literal View is well designed discussing many philosophical issues while keeping Scripture and exegetical processes at the forefront of the argument. He states that of the hundreds of prophesies fulfilled in Scripture, the vast majority are literally fulfilled, and thus hell should be taken to be an eternal fiery existence. The Metaphorical View takes a hard look at Scripture's apocalyptic writing and sees much figurative language. He says the Bible contradicts itself if the verbiage on hell is taken literally. Thus, he contends that it must be understood metaphorically. The Purgatorial View bases the argument on tradition and states that Scripture was the seed in which God intended theology to grow. Hence, while he concedes purgatory has no real Scriptural support, that it is the rational outcropping based on theological development. The Conditional View is the viewpoint of Annihilationism from an Evangelical stance. This is based mostly on philosophy and a dissatisfaction with the conflict between God's infinite mercy and love with eternal torment. Of these four views, I found the Literal and Metaphorical views to be most convincing. The reason is that they stayed closer to the Bible and to Paul's teaching to not go beyond what is written. In my opinion, basing theology on tradition which contradicts itself frequently, and philosophy which changes rapidly, are contrary to my belief. Although, I do think the viewpoints from these two persuasions I disagree with are put forth exceedingly well and they make a good case for their arguments. Overall, you will be hard-pressed to find the four viewpoints on hell put into writing in one place with such ability. The views I did not agree with made me think, and I felt the cases I did agree with were put forth with very good support. My only critique would be with some of the critiques. I found a couple of the critques to be difficult because they either missed the mark (leaving out maj

I am a lay person who has a very open mind as to how others view Christianity and all that that entales. Hell is one subject that seems to be rarley discussed in pulpits but often enters into conversations with other people, Christian and non-Christian alike. This book helps understand how people view the different concepts of Hell. If you are closed minded or rather already have your hard-core beliefs firmly in place, then you may want to skip this one. If however, you want to explore the concept of Hell and are not afraid to be challenged, then you will find this very interesting. Each author presents his particular view of Hell and then backs it up both with argument and biblical application. The other three authors are then aforded the opportunity to rebuff or challenge that view. This in and of itself was worth the price of the book to me. I found myself rethinking many things as regards my own personal beliefs...but to me that is what this is all about, open dialogue and frank, respectful discussion. The book presents no one view as the "right" or "correct" view, but instead allows each author to present his view and then leaves the reader to decide for him or herself to decide where his or her personal belief falls or where it is challenged to ponder the aspects of other views. I used this book as the main text for a four week church study on the subject and many to date still feel this was the most thought provoking class they had ever taken.

Four Views of Hell is one of the best books available on the subject. Unlike other books on the same topic, the book dares to allow differing voices to be heard. But, this book may tell us even more about the prejudices and preconceptions of those who contributed to it than about the afterlife.John Walvoord is dogmatic in his "Literal" view that hell is a place of actual flames combining physical pain with mental and emotional depression and misery. I believe that literal is a particularly bad naming and this should have been called the "Traditional" view instead.William Crockett allows more credence to other views but still suggests that his "Metaphorical" view, hell is a state of mental and emotional depression and misery without physical features, are the only reasonable views.In the "Purgatorial" view, Zachary Hayes, gives an excellent synopsis of the development of this controversial idea, but the reader is left to wonder whether purgatorial is 'hellish' in the traditional sense or merely cleansing and refreshing. His treatment of the Roman Catholic doctrine is historical, fair, and unapologetic.Clark Pinnock writes one of the best articles, to date, on the "Conditional" view. This view holds that in the end, most of the unsaved will become saved, and those who persist in rebellion and hold fast to doing evil will enter a state of oblivion and annihilation. Pinnock's article and counterpoints are excellent and by far the least prideful of the lot.The flaw, not with the book but with the contributors, is that they don't seem to read what the others have written. In their rebuttals they pick and choose their attack points often missing the very solutions to the problems they point out. I would be delighted if this book were revised in the future to include views on "Soul Sleep" and deeper coverage of the included views. Despite the pugnatious attitudes of some of the contributors, I would want to read a broader and deeper coverage of the different views rather than avoiding them or this book.While Hell-ologists (to coin an understandable term) may be dogmatic and sometimes arrogant in their views, the book allows the reader to see what their views are about and to fairly weigh the views. I've yet to find another book on the subject which accepts counterpoints as well as this book in Zondervan's Counterpoints Series.

This book accomplishes its objective of presenting four differing views on hell. Obviously, it consists of four authors submitting defenses of their particular positions. A couple of the writers are more persuasive than their colleagues. This persuasiveness, however, stems more from the positions themselves rather than from the skill of the persons penning them.Walvoord begins with a simplistic, fundamentalist position of literal, eternal fire. Walvoord does a decent job of making his point. The issue is muddled, unfortunately, with the mantra of literal interpretation as the only method for persons who believe the Bible is inerrant. The connection with dispensationalism is apparent in the frequent, literal application of passages in Revelation.Crockett steps to the plate next with the metaphorical view. His presentation is the most convincing of the four, partially because of his skill but mainly because of the strength of the argument itself. Crockett sticks to the point and drives it home.Hayes takes his turn defending the purgatorial position. I was a bit surprised to find a serious consideration given to the idea of purgatory in a work of this nature. Hayes deserves credit for making a valiant attempt to communicate a Catholic belief to a predominantly Protestant audience. He offers little Scriptural support for his position, simply because there is little Scriptural support to be found.Pinnock concludes the presentations with his view of annihilation. Pinnock is not as convincing as Crockett, but gives some substantial Scriptural evidence and theological reasoning to support his position. Crockett does an excellent job of refuting Pinnock's argument in the brief response he offers.I intially planned to give this volume three or four stars, because at least two of the arguments presented are extremely weak. On second thought, however, the presentations are all fairly well done -- the problem is with the positions themselves. For anyone wanting a good overview of four doctrines of hell, I strongly recommend this book.

I've been raised in numorous Christian traditions and therefore, find these types of books (comparisions on doctrine) interesting and insightful. Out of these series of books, this one is probably the best. The contributors get right to the point and state their claims concisely.Let me give an example on how this book affects one like myself. See, my uncle Jim was a Baptist minister and I often went to his church only to hear "fire and brimstone" sermons. Once, I even watched a film on hell. Needless to say, he believed in the literal view. For a couple of years, I became a Presbyterian and hell was hardly preached. When it was spoken of, it was in a "metaphorical" sense. Then during my teens, my mom converted to Seventh-Day Adventism and then I was fully indoctrinated into the "conditional" mortality view.This book was good, because being an advid student of theology, I find this issue, though not essential, greatly interesting. Each side is represented by a highly qualified biblical expert. I was disappointed with Dr. Walvood who defended the "literal" view of hell. He was the least logical and in fact distorted the positions of others. Since he is so well known and qualified, I find it curious that he didn't build a stronger case. I was looking for a stronger case - something to challenge my presuppositions.William Crockett (Metaphorical) and Clark Pinock (Conditional) presented their views the best. Both supported their views from scripture and with sound logic and biblical hermeneutics. Anyone with an open mind can see that these two positions call for more dialogue and study. It is easy to dismiss the conditional view because it is held by cults like the Jehovah's Witnesses and border line Christian sects like the Seventh-Day Adventist. To do this however, is to neglect the study of scripture with an earnest heart and mind.I left the SDA denomination long ago (1989), but still find the conditional view a compelling doctrine, however, Crockett presented a great case and now for about seven years, I have had to re-think my position and seek further study into God's word.