Erasing Hell

Keep in mind that we’re not simply trying to settle a doctrinal issue. We’re talking about people’s destinies. The thought that someone may end up banking on a second chance after they die even though the biblical authors never explicitly said this is … well …
Terrifying.

These are eternal destinies we’re talking about. We can’t be wrong on this one.
(p. 36)

These are perhaps the most sobering words in the new release from Francis Chan and Preston Sprinkle, Erasing Hell. This book is an impassioned plea to deal squarely and honestly with the Bible’s teaching on hell. In a style Chan has come to be known for, it is conversational in tone and you can’t help but feel as if he’s sitting across a table at Starbucks sharing from his heart.

While reading, I recalled some emotions I experienced many years ago when preparing for a sermon on hell. Without question those weeks in preparation were difficult as I pondered many biblical texts that speak about life after death for the unbeliever (see my Is Hell Going out of Business?). Passages such as Rev. 14:11; 20:10 and Is. 66:24; Dan. 12:2; Matt. 25:46; 2 Thess. 1:8-9 are not easy to ponder and brought me to my knees on not a few occasions.

One of the unique contributions of Erasing Hell is Chapter 6, “What if God … ?” and the discussion around Rom 9:22-23. Anyone thoughtful about this passage knows it’s not easy to understand (the Greek is not entirely clear). The question here is: Are the vessels prepared for destruction participating in their own preparation (middle voice) or is someone(thing) outside them assisting their preparation for destruction (passive)? The middle/passive participle in v 22 “prepared for destruction”, argues Doug Moo, “does not clearly bring God into the picture” (Romans, p 607). Moo goes on to note that just as with v 23 where the “vessels of mercy” are clearly prepared by God (see ESV, NLT), so too God is involved in preparing the vessels of wrath for destruction. Though C. S. Lewis’s comment “The doors of hell are locked from the inside” is a popular response to this perplexing issue (see The Problem of Pain, and elsewhere), it may not bode well with the biblical data (see Luke 16:26, for instance). Aware of these interpretive difficulties, Erasing Hell puts forth the following challenges:

What if God, as the sovereign Creator of the universe, decided to create “vessels of wrath prepared for destruction”? And what if He did so in order to “show his wrath” and “make known His power”? And what if it’s His way of showing those He saves just how great His glory and mercy is? What would you do if He chose to do this? Refuse to believe in Him? Refuse to be a “vessel of mercy”? Does that make any sense? Would you refuse to follow Him? Really? Is that wise?
(p 130)

Readers are invited to consider not if they want to believe in a God who would sentence some to eternal destruction, but if they could believe in a God who would do this. Before you answer, consider the following:

Notice that Paul does not explicitly say that God destroys sinners for the purpose of showing the world just how powerful He is. Rather, Paul simply raises it as a legitimate possibility. In other words, God may want to display His wrath and power by punishing sinners, or He may have some other purpose in mind. Either way, we must come to a place where we can let God be God. We need to surrender our perceived right to determine what is just and humbly recognize that God alone gets to decide how He is going to deal with people.
(p 131)

As the master Potter, God alone has the sole right to make a lump of clay into any kind of vessel he chooses. Any kind of vessel (Rom 9:20-21)! This is hard. It’s one thing to believe in the absolute, meticulous sovereignty of God and quite another to embrace it without reservation. However, one could simply respond with something like, “It’s not a matter of whether I want to or could believe in a God who would sentence some to eternal destruction, but whether I should given the biblical evidence. If I hold to the absolute authority of Scripture and find that it does not teach this, then I should not believe it.” Hum….

As for whether unbelievers will experience never-ending punishment or suffer only a limited time before their destruction (read “annihilation”), no surprise here. Chan (and co-author Preston Sprinkle) tentatively conclude that unbelievers will experience never-ending punishment for two reasons:

First, the contrast between “aionios life” and “aionios punishment” includes the notion of never-ending time. While it is true that aionios doesn’t always mean “everlasting,” when used here to describe things in the “age to come,” it probably does have this meaning…

Second, the punishment is said to be in the “everlasting [aionios] fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). We know from other passages in Scripture that the Devil and his angels will suffer never-ending punishment (Rev. 20:10). Therefore, when Jesus says that unbelievers will go to the same place and suffer the same punishment, it logically follows that their punishment will also never end.
(pp. 85-86)

Nevertheless, this conclusion is tentative since they state (in a united voice), “While I lean heavily on the side that says [punishment] is everlasting, I am not ready to claim that with complete certainty” (p 86). Readers are admonished to continue researching but not miss Jesus’ point is “to stir a fear in us that would cause us to take hell seriously and avoid it at all costs” (p. 86).

This is a reasonable apologetic. If we take seriously the descriptions of hell in Scripture, just the threat of one day there should be sufficient to motivate us to consider the Gospel call. I can’t help but think, by way of contrast, of Psalm 84:10.

Better is one day in your courts
than a thousand elsewhere;
I would rather be a doorkeeper in the house of my God
than dwell in the tents of the wicked.

An important, easy read and excellent for continuing discussions that have the blogosphere ablaze!

10 thoughts on “Erasing Hell”

  1. Hi Paul,

    Your responses are accurate, with some provisos. Not all beliefs are false, at least not to the believers. Absolute Truth, unlike the relative truths of this life, cannot be defined in words (not even those of scriptures). Yes, some interpretations are more informed than others. It is, however, difficult to determine what the original author meant, especially from 2,000 years past.

    About beliefs beings beneficial, I was referring to hermeneutics, i.e. interpretations of sacred scriptures, not the broad spectrum of beliefs of each person. I suspect that mysticism is of little interest to you. The fact that world population has more than doubled in the last 50 years should be of concern to everyone, especially future generations.

    1. Question, Ron:
      Your comment “absolute truth…cannot be defined in words” seems to be using words to articulate this proposition. Are we cutting off our intellectual nose to spite our mystical face?
      Moreover, is the statement “absolute truth…cannot be defined in words” true absolutely or only relatively true? If the latter, then why should I (or you) believe it?

      Don’t mean to be overly argumentative, but I struggle to get your point or find anything meaningful here.

  2. Did Chan offer an opinion about the participle “desiring” in Romans 9:22? Is it concessive or causal?

    “What if God, although He desired to show his wrath and to make known his power, has endured with much patience…”

    “What if God, because He desired to show his wrath…”

    1. Hey Daniel,
      Thanks for commenting. No. Chan/Sprinkle have not engaged the exegetical details of the participle θέλων (“desiring”). However, Moo favors causal rather than concessive (pp. 605-607). See also Cranfield.

  3. Jesus, and Abraham, were straight forward about the estate of the rich man (the person and the environment) in Luke 16:20f. They were also straight forward about the necessary message for people to respond to, and they seemed to understand some will correctly respond and some will not. Why should I not follow their lead and understand, and then accept, what seems to be the reality of the situation?

    With respect to Ron’s post, that none of the competing views can be proven (if we choose to exclude direct testimony, such as in Luke 16, and without defining what it means to “prove”), can some competing views be disproven, or viewed as likely false, and how would that enterprise take shape? (In like fashion, the age of the earth can’t be proven.) For example: a Hindu view that all reality is really a seamless unity. Braham. That view’s metaphysic can’t be attained by its epistemology. But, followers state the metaphysic as if it is a fact. So, perhaps we could reduce the number of competing views.

  4. In 2011 world population will reach 7 billion (vs. 3 billion in 1960). There are now approximately 2.2 billion Christians. Chan and Sprinkle seem to be saying that 4.8 billion people may be facing eternal hell.

    Concepts of afterlife vary between religions and among divisions of each faith. Not all Christians agree on what happens after death in this life, nor do all Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, or other believers. Rebirth, resurrection, purgatory, universalism, and oblivion are other possibilities…none of which can be proven.

    Mystics of all faiths have more in common than the followers of their orthodox religions. True mystics realize that eternal life is here and now; it does not begin after mortal death. The age of Earth is said to be 4.5 billion years, of the Universe 13.7 billion, yet few humans live to be 100. Relatively, this lifetime is a mere speck.

    Scriptures are subject to interpretation; people often choose what is most beneficial for them.

    1. Ron:
      Thanks for commenting. Not sure of the implications from your comments so please forgive me if I’m mistaken in understanding your points.

      That people differ on beliefs does not entail that all beliefs are false nor that there is no truth to be discovered. Put differently, plurality of beliefs does not require that truth is relative (on this see Mortimer Adler’s excellent Truth in Religion. Similarly, that Scripture is subject to interpretation proves little. Some interpretations are more informed than others and the goal of the exegete is to apprehend, as closely as possible, what the original author and meant and the audience understood, which can be done.

      Moreover, I hold many benefit beliefs that are not necessarily “beneficial” to me (being patient rather than impatient; loving my wife sacrificially when I sometimes don’t feel like serving her). So, not all beliefs are beneficial. Even if all of my beliefs are beneficial, does that mean they’re false?

  5. Thanks for the review, Paul. I had just purchased this on Friday but have not yet picked it up to start reading. I was prompted to pick it up after spending nearly a week battling against a Rob Bell enthusiast who also happens to be a candidate for senior minister at our congregation (well, I should say used to be, I’m fairly certain the leadership is now convinced that he is not the right choice for us).

Please comment responsibly (see http://inchristus.com/blog-author/blog-guidelines/)

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s