Hell Granted, Differences Exist Between

¶ … Hell Granted, differences exist between such major religions as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and Muslim in their concept of hell, or whether it even exists. What about within these specific denominations: Do they differ in their idea of hell, and if so how? In his book Four Views on Hell, William Crockett, theologian at the Alliance Theological Seminary, invited his three colleagues John Walvoord at Dallas Theological Seminary, Zachary Hayes at the Catholic Theological Union and Clark Pinnock at McMaster Divinity College to give their interpretation on what is hell.

The four theologians openly explain how they view God's punishment to wrongdoers from their particularly evangelical perspective. SUMMARY Walvoord supports the long-held tradition of literalism that is most depicted in early religion and the humanities and throughout the ages -- sinners suffering in fire for all of eternity. All in all, Walvoord's concept is quite damning (pun intended). it's a "go directly to jail, do not pass 'Go' to not collect $200" concept or a one-way trip to hell forever. There is no way to escape or end this torture.

Crockett's metaphorical view, also having a long history, is as its name implies: He sees the Bible's hellish images of the devil and fire as a metaphor. Instead of burning in fire, the wicked suffer from emotionally and spiritually from being separated from God. Similar to Walvoord, Crockett sees this as an eternal conscious suffering with no way out. Hayes quickly demonstrates one of the main differences between Catholicism and other Christian religions by assuming the purgatorial view that gives people more than an either-or situation.

When people die, they are immediately judged to go to hell, because they were sinners who never repented; heaven, because they lived particularly spiritual lives; or, in most cases, to purgatory, where after undesignated centuries or millennium will be purified and heaven bound. In this case, people have a second chance at redeeming themselves with a loving God. Finally Pinnock's conditional mortality perspective, also sometimes known as annihilationism, finds a way of justifying the loving God with the torment of hell.

Instead of being burned by fire or tormented by a spiritual loss or existing in purgatory for eons, people just perish. Beyond giving their own perspectives, as in a formal debate, Crockett gives each of the authors an opportunity to comment on their peer's argument. This makes for an interesting addition, since these theologians do not only have to provide support for their own views but also the lack of it for the other viewpoints.

Of course, for most people reading this book, the scholar who provides the best argument is probably the one who comes closest to their own view on the subject of hell and the Bible in general. Looking at these four authors objectively, however, the winner of the debate is the one who: provides the most relevant examples from the Bible to back up his theory; stays closest to the topic and specific question on hand; and not only supports his own views but negates the others.

It is up to the reader to decide which he/she felt "objectively" did this best.

REVIEW of BOOK When looking at the different reviews of this book by fellow clergy, one reviewer was most persuaded by Crockett's view since, the metaphorical view does necessiatate any less of a trust in the Bible, but merely tries to "interpret verses responsibly" (Skeptical Christian website) Out of all of the contributors, this reviewer felt that only Crockett considers the critical issue of what Christ's contemporaries would have thought of the verses, based on cultural indications of the times.

Christ's sayings need to be interpreted within the timeframe of the Biblical world and not only through the modern Western culture's perspective. (However, other critics see this as a negative point, because they believe the Bible should be interpreted as one sees it today, not in the past.) This reviewer (Skeptical Christian website) also states that Crockett's argument against literalism that hell cannot simultaneously be a place of fire and of darkness at the same time is correct.

(Personally, I do not see this as such a strong argument against literalism.

If God is all powerful, then there can be both fire and darkness at the same time; think of the blind person who feels the heat of the fire but sees nothing.) The critic David Burge (website) urges strongly against any of the "traditional" view and a thumbs-up to Pinnock: "I can't help but agree with Pinnock's assertion that the uncritical acceptance of the doctrine of the immortality of the soul has lead many to ignore the obvious meaning of many Scriptures.

Thus we do well not to separate the doctrine of hell from other vital doctrines concerning the nature of man and the intermediate state." Yet Burge does not believe that Pinnock or any other of the theologians are convincing enough to sway anyone to their views. Burge also states that a number of reviewers commented that Walvoord was not at his best in presenting the literal view, and does better in critiquing the views of his theological opponents.

Other critics state comments such as the purgatorial view is not actually a view of hell and should not be included (I do not agree. I see it as another way of viewing the same thing.); Walvoord does not explain how fire and darkness can be present at the same time; and Pinnock should be faulted for not explaining the full range of the words that he uses to explain his views.

Walvoord is commended for his word "eternal" in relationship to wickedness in other parts of the Bible and Crockett for his strong refutation of annihilationism, because the view in Christ's day of eternal conscious punishment. Overall, it appears by the reviews (unless reading one by a person of a corresponding denomination) that none of the authors provided enough motivation to change anyone's prior religious views. However, they did believe (as I do) that it was an interesting book to read for a good underlying understanding of these beliefs.

This would be of interest in a religion class or as an introduction to a group discussion on hell.

Personally, there are a few "devil's advocate" points to make on the arguments presented: 1) Crockett: If it is necessary to read the Bible metaphorically in order to resolve the moral issue of a loving God and the torment of hell, how does one explain the "hell" here on earth as the thousands of deaths from disasters and war with this loving God? What metaphors exist for this?; 2) if one reads the Bible literally, how can some issues in the Bible be possible and others completely impossible to believe?; 3) Purgatory and perishing seem to be "cop outs" for those who do not want to face the reality of what happens to those who sin.

If they see God as loving enough to give people a second chance or not suffer anguish, once again, how can this loving God also make some "good" people's lives on earth such hell? In other words, one's belief on hell once again comes down to faith and personal views. For the time being, there is no concrete information on hell, so it is up to everyone's own personal interpretation of what it is like.

How can there be any right or wrong until proven so? The literalist may say that everything in the Bible is true, the metaphorical viewpoint may say that these are symbols for what is actually taking place in this location called hell, the purgatorial perspective may say that individuals could have the possibility of redeeming themselves after centuries of waiting, and the conditionalists may say that people perish instead of going to hell.

What is "right" is how people believe in their own heart is right for them, not for others. As noted, this is an interesting book. However, an introduction to the subject as.