The Doctrine of Hell

The Doctrine of Hell

Pastor’s Study
April 14, 2009
…holding forth the word of life (Philippians 2:16a)


Introduction

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) 33.2 summarizes the doctrine of the last judgment in the following manner:

The end of God’s appointing this day [wherein He will judge the world] is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of the elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient. For then shall the righteous go into everlasting life, and receive that fullness of joy and refreshing, which shall come from the presence of the Lord: but the wicked, who know not God, and obey not the Gospel of Jesus Christ, shall be cast into eternal torments, and be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of His power.

The affirmation of the doctrine of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment of unbelievers is not, however, without its detractors. What is the biblical – theological teaching on the subject?

Affirmation of the Doctrine in the Theological Tradition

Generally, the early fathers affirmed the doctrine of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment of unbelievers. For example, Justin Martyr says that “Christ foretold that Satan would be sent into the fire with his host, along with the men who follow him, and they will be punished for an endless duration.”[1] Theophilus adds, “To the unbelieving and despisers, who do not obey the truth . . . there will be anger and wrath, tribulation and anguish. At the end, everlasting fire will possess such men.”[2] Irenaeus stated, “Eternal fire is prepared for sinners. The Lord plainly declared this and the rest of the Scriptures demonstrate it.”[3] Clement of Alexandria also affirmed the teaching: “The wicked are punished with the endless vengeance of quenchless fire. Since they do not die, it is impossible for them to have an end put to their misery.”[4] Mark Minucius Felix believed that “there is neither limit nor termination of these torments [in] the penal fire.”[5] Lactantius explains:

The force of this is not that it altogether annihilates the souls of the unrighteous, but subjects them to everlasting punishment. We call that punishment the second death, which is also perpetual, the same as immortality. The second death is the suffering of eternal pain. It is the condemnation of souls to eternal punishments, to receive their deserts.[6]

Tertullian – in his book On the Resurrection of the Flesh – quotes Jesus’ saying in Matthew 10:28: “He is rather to be feared who is able to destroy both body and soul in hell, not those who kill the body, but are not able to hurt the soul,” and then observes:
If any one shall suppose that the destruction of the soul and the flesh in hell amounts to a final annihilation of the two substances, and not to their penal treatment, let him recollect that the fire of hell is eternal – expressly announced as an everlasting penalty.[7]
In his Apology, Tertullian reiterates his conviction in the everlasting conscious torment of the wicked: “The profane and all who are not wholly devoted to God [will be] in the punishment of fire which is eternal.”[8]

In The City of God, Augustine, in commenting on Mathew 25:46, “So those people will go into eternal punishment, while the righteous will go into eternal life,” says that “because the eternal life of the saints will be endless, the eternal punishment also, for those condemned to it, will assuredly have no end.”[9]

Thomas Aquinas, in Summa contra Gentiles, supports the everlasting torment of the wicked: “We set aside the error of those who say that the punishments of the wicked are to be ended at some time.”[10]

Martin Luther and John Calvin also affirmed the traditional teaching on hell. Luther warns the readers in his commentary on Psalm 21 (Commentary on the Psalms) that “constantly the damned will be judged, constantly they will suffer pain, and constantly they will be a fiery oven, that is, they will be tortured within by supreme distress and tribulation.”[11] Calvin, in his commentary on 2 Thessalonians 1:9 contrasts the eternal glory of Christ with the eternal sufferings of the wicked. He writes:

The phrase which he adds in apposition [“eternal destruction from the face of the Lord”] explains the nature of the punishment which he had mentioned – it is eternal punishment and death which has no end. The perpetual duration of this death is proved from the fact that its opposite is the glory of Christ. This is eternal and has no end. Hence the violent nature of that death will never cease.[12]

Jonathan Edwards and John Wesley as well supported the teaching on endless punishment. Edwards declared, in a sermon on Revelation 6:15-16, that wicked men will ardently desire extinction in order to escape the wrath of God. But, he adds [citing Matthew 25:46], “the Scripture is very express and abundant in this matter that the eternal punishment is in sensible misery and torment and not annihilation.”[13] Wesley’s “Letter to a Roman Catholic” summarizes his views regarding eternal condemnation: “I believe that, as the unjust shall after their resurrection be tormented in hell forever, so the just shall enjoy inconceivable happiness in the presence of God to all eternity.”[14]

On the other hand, eighteenth-century neology revived the universalistic purview of Origen by essentially equating hell with purgatory. The impenitent would experience temporary purification, with ultimate redemption as its goal. Schleiermacher (Christian Faith) adhered to this view of hell with his hope for a restoration of all humankind. During the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, liberal Protestantism basically repudiated the notion of eternal retribution, especially in a materialistic sense.[15]

In recent times, Francis Pieper, Lewis Sperry Chafer, and Millard Erickson have all defended the traditional view. Pieper, in his Christian Dogmatics, maintains that objections to the biblical teaching are motivated by human sentiments. The doctrine, however, is intended to warn against “unbelief and carnal security” and thus save souls from eternal torment. Chafer is convicted of the truth of eternal perdition and finds Matthew 25:46, among other references, as compelling support. On the other hand, Erickson – in his Christian Theology – highlights Isaiah 66:24 and Mark 9:43-48 as support for the doctrine of everlasting punishment.[16]

Biblical Support for the Teaching

According to the Scriptures, hell is a place of punishment where those who die unconverted are separated forever from the presence of the Lord, and suffer eternal torments.
Matthew 25:31-46 is perhaps the most important biblical reference on hell. This passage is a prophetic revelation of the last judgment awaiting all humankind. Here a separation of sheep from goats is envisioned: the sheep enter upon their inheritance in glory whereas the goats are consigned to the eternal fire (vv 34, 41). This contrasting fate is highlighted in verse 46: “These [the goats] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” Augustine’s commentary on this verse accentuates the parallelism of eternal punishment and eternal life:

Is it not folly to assume that eternal punishment signifies a fire lasting a long time, while believing that eternal life is life without end? For Christ, in the very same passage, included both punishment and life in one and the same sentence when he said, “so those people will go into eternal punishment, while the righteous will go into eternal life” (Mt. 25:46). If both are “eternal,” it follows necessarily that either both are to be taken as long-lasting but finite, or both as endless and perpetual. The phrases “eternal punishment” and “eternal life” are parallel and it would be absurd to use them in one and the same sentence to mean: “Eternal life will be infinite, while eternal punishment will have an end.” Hence, because the eternal life of the saints will be endless, the eternal punishment also, for those condemned to it, will assuredly have no end.[17]

Our Lord spoke of hell frequently.[18] In his parables that described the final judgment, He always referred to the eternal conscious torment of the impenitent in outer darkness where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt 13:42, 50; 24:51; 25:30). This punishment of the wicked is further described as “unquenchable fire” (Matt 3:12); “shame and everlasting contempt” (Dan 12:2); a place where “their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:44-49); “everlasting destruction” (2 Thes 1:9); a place of torment with “fire and brimstone” where “the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever” (Rev 14:10, 11); and a “lake of fire and brimstone” where the wicked are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev 20:10).[19] As Moore notes, “It is compelling that every instance of eis tous aionas ton aionon means “absolute endlessness or eternity.” This is “the most emphatic expression of unending, ceaseless activity possible in the Greek language.””[20]

Annihilationism

Notwithstanding the firm biblical – theological support for the doctrine of endless punishment, the Roman Catholic philosopher Alfred Freddoso maintains:

There is ample reason for thinking that ultimately the most troublesome form which the problem of evil can take for the orthodox Christian is this: How is the existence of a benevolent and almighty God to be reconciled with even the possibility of someone’s going to hell (whether this is thought to involve simple annihilation or the pain of everlasting separation from God)?[21]

Indeed, the prospect of hell as a place of eternal conscious torment of unbelievers has caused many evangelical scholars to relinquish their belief in the traditional teaching on hell for the teachings of annihilationism and universalism.

What is annihilationism? Generally, this is the view that some persons or all human beings will cease to exist after death. We may note three distinctions that Warfield emphasizes: (1) that all human beings inevitably cease to exist at death (materialist); (2) that, while human beings are naturally moral, God imparts to the redeemed the gift of immortality and allows the rest of humanity to sink into nothingness (conditional immortality); (3) that man, being created immortal, fulfills his destiny in salvation, while the reprobates fall into nonexistence either through a direct act of God or through the corrosive effect of evil (annihilationism proper).[22] J.I. Packer states that conditional immortality and annihilationism comprise “a verbal distinction that corresponds to no theological difference.”[23] With reference to the debate on hell, annihilationism is the “teaching that, after the wicked have suffered the penalty of God’s wrath for a time, God will “annihilate” them so that they no longer exist.” The main proponents of this view are Philip E Hughes, John R. W. Stott, Clark Pinnock, and Edward Fudge.[24]

How is this position defended? Pinnock holds that the word “destroy” (apollumi) and its cognate words support the annihilation of unbelievers (Matt 3:10, 12; 5:22; I Cor 3:17; Phil 1:28; Gal 6:8; and II Thess 1:9). We can, however, indicate several passages where this word does not convey such a meaning. In Romans 14:15, for example, Paul states that a believer can destroy or ruin (apollumi) his relationship with a fellow believer in Christ. The word is also found in Luke 5:37, referring to wineskins that are ruined. The lost (apollumi) sheep and the lost (apollumi) son (Luke 15:2-6) clearly do not imply annihilation. In Matthew 8:25, the disciples – caught in a storm – implore Jesus to rescue them from perishing (apollumi), a certain reference to dying, not annihilation.

With reference to I Corinthians 3:17, Paul states that if anyone destroys God’s temple, God will destroy that person. The annihilation of the church (see verses 9, 17) is clearly not in view in this passage. “Destroying” the temple, then, refers to sinful conduct that corrupts the body of Christ and impedes the witness of the church. God, in the light of this breach, will not annihilate the divisive person but rather bring him or her to ruin.

Pinnock particularly emphasizes Matthew 3:10, 12 to buttress his arguments for annihilationism. In this passage, he asserts that the unbeliever is obliterated in unquenchable fire:

And the axe is already laid at the root of the tree; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire . . . and his winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.

In response to Pinnock, we may ask: Why is the fire unquenchable? Clearly, the fire continues to burn because it continues to serve a purpose, namely the eternal conscious torment of the impenitent as is undoubtedly attested in Matthew 25, Revelation 14, and Revelation 20.[25]

Is annihilationism a biblically or theologically viable view? In our discussion, we have noted exegetical flaws in the arguments advanced by proponents of the teaching. Here we might add that they ignore the contexts and historical settings of the New Testament. Pinnock, for example, gives no consideration to how Christ would have been understood by the Pharisees. William Crockett’s remarks are poignant:

Convinced that the doctrine of eternal hell is savage, Pinnock ignores the contexts and historical settings of the New Testament. What Pinnock needs to grapple with, but does not, is the historical setting in which Jesus’ statements about hell are found. Pinnock overlooks the significant fact that the Pharisees taught that the soul suffered eternal conscious punishment. So when Jesus talked about the destruction of the wicked in hell and referred to their weeping and suffering, the Pharisaic crowds would have understood him to mean endless suffering, unless he specified that the punishment was annihilation (which of course he never did).[26]

Universalism

Universalism is the view that ultimately all souls will be freed from the penalties of sin and will be saved. Origen is reputed to be the first proponent of universalism. In his doctrine of apokatastasis, he posited that all things, even Satan and his angels, would ultimately be restored to God. This restitution of all things did not, however, preclude the possibility of divine condemnation involving a temporary internal anguish of the wicked occasioned by their sense of separation from God, a prospect viewed as remedial instead of penal (De principiis, 1.6.1-5). This view attracted the support of Gregory of Nyssa (Oratio catechetica 26) who was undoubtedly inclined toward universalism. Later, Augustine assailed this unorthodox teaching. In 553, the Second Council of Constantinople formally anathematized universalism. According to the Augsburg Confession 17, the doctrine of the Anabaptists “that the devil and condemned men will not suffer eternal pain and torment” is disavowed.

Proponents of universalism hold to varying ideas regarding the salvation of the entire human race. Some propose the theory of universal explicit opportunity – the view that all persons will be presented with an opportunity to hear the gospel, either during their lifetime or after death. Confronted with the claims of the gospel in the afterlife, those who previously rejected the offer of salvation will now respond in faith. Hence, eventually everyone will be saved. This notion, though, is controverted by the teaching of Jesus concerning the afterlife – there is no second opportunity for repentance and faith after death (Luke 16:19-31).

The theory of universal reconciliation purports that, through the death of Christ, all humankind was reconciled to God. Hence, all persons need to acknowledge this accomplished work by living as though reconciled. 2 Corinthians 5:18 is adduced to teach this view. On the other hand, the theory of universal pardon is the view that God will relent and forgive all mankind, imputing righteousness and granting faith to all. This position does not preclude the idea of willing repentance and faith. Origen’s theory of universal restoration represents the final variation of universalism.

The doctrine of universalism is predicated on an adulterated understanding of the love of God. Nels Ferre, for example, believes that:

If hell is real, love is eternally frustrated and heaven is a place of mourning and concern for the lost. Such joy and such grief cannot go together. Heaven can be heaven only when it has emptied hell, as surely as love is love and God is God.[27]

The “sovereign victory of God in Christ over all in terms of His own love” assures that all will be saved. Texts such as Romans 5:18; 11:32; I Corinthians 15:22; Philippians 2:10-11; Colossians 1:19-20; I Timothy 4:10; and Hebrews 2:9 purportedly support this conclusion.

In response to universalism, we note that many biblical references contradict this idea: “And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life” (Matt 25:46); “For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16); “Do not marvel at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in the tombs will hear his voice and come forth, those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of judgment” (John 5:28-29). Other passages that could be cited include Matthew 8:12; 25:41; 26:24; Mark 3:29; Romans 2:5; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Revelation 21:8.

Upon examination of universalistic passages, we observe that they do not teach what the universalists claim. For example, Philippians 2:10-11 and Colossians 1:19-20 do not teach universal restoration. Rather, they affirm only the reparation of the disrupted order of the cosmos, the bringing of all things into subjection to God. Also I Timothy 4:10 and Hebrews 2:9 posit universal atonement, but not universal salvation.[28] Romans 11:32, as well, affirm salvation for all men – that is, Jews and Gentiles who believe. As Mark Rapinchuk has demonstrated, the seventy occurrences of “all” in Romans fall into three categories: (1) all – denoting every single component of the group (without exception); (2) all – denoting every manner or kind; and (3) all – denoting all men without distinction. Romans 11:32 fits into the third category, thus universalistic interpretations are untenable.[29]

The doctrine of effectual calling also refutes universalism. Vocatio interna refers to “God’s inward and ultimately persuasive summons [to the elect] to repent of sin and to turn to Christ for salvation.”[30] John 6:44 illustrates this effectual calling. In this text, the Father’s gracious drawing work preceded the person’s coming to Christ. Further, the drawing eventuated in final salvation. As Ware explains, “the drawing of the Father does not result in the mere possibility of being saved [one strain of universalism], which possibility becomes an actuality only when the one drawn chooses to assent to the drawing.”[31] First Corinthians 1:18-31 also supports the doctrine of effectual calling. In this passage, Paul affirms that God offers salvation to “the called ones,” that is, to the elect out of the mass of Jews and Gentiles. And those “called ones” hear and believe. As Ware adds, “the call of I Corinthians 1:24 is [therefore] selective, effectual, and ultimately irresistible against all previous rejection and disbelief.”[32] In short, the doctrine of effectual calling and universalism are incompatible.

The doctrine of hell, in contradistinction to the teaching of universalism and annihilationism, upholds the justice of God (Ps 76:10). Persons in hell, having contracted infinite guilt by the dishonor of their transgression against the infinitely majestic God, will know that their punishment is just and that they alone are culpable (Deut 32:3-5; Rom 1:32; 2:4-11).

May this teaching spur us to spread the gospel throughout the whole world so that people everywhere will escape God’s wrath to come.



[1]David W. Bercot, ed, A Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, (1998), 242.

[2]Ibid., 243.
[3]Ibid.
[4]Ibid., 244.
[5]Ibid., 245.
[6]Ibid., 249.
[7]Edward William Fudge and Robert a. Peterson, Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000), 119.
[8]Ibid.
[9]Ibid., 120.
[10]Ibid., 121.
[11]Ibid., 122.
[12]Ibid., 123.
[13]Ibid., 124.
[14]Ibid., 125.
[15]G.W. Bromiley, “History of the Doctrine of Hell,” in the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 2, rev. ed., ed. G.W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1982), 679.
[16]Fudge and Peterson, Two Views, 125-27.
[17]Ibid., 141.
[18]See Matt 5:22, 29; 8:12; 10:28; 11:23; 13:42, 50; 16;18; 22:13; 23:15, 33; 24:51; 25:30, 41.
[19]W.G.T. Shedd, The Doctrine of Endless Punishment, reprint (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1990), chap 2 passim.
[20]Moore, The Battle, 27.
[21]Quoted in David George Moore, The Battle for Hell: A Survey and Evaluation of Evangelicals’ Growing Attraction to the Doctrine of Annihilationism (New York: University Press of America, 1995), 10.
[22]R. Nicole, “Annihilationism,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, ed. Walter A. Elwell (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1984), 50.
[23]See f.n. 12 in Moore, The Battle, 11.
[24]Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1994), 1149-50.
[25]Moore, The Battle, 18-19.
[26]Ibid., 24-25.
[27]Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 1015-19.
[28]Ibid., 1019-21.
[29]See Mark Rapinchuk, JETS 42.3 (September 1999): 434-37.
[30]Bruce Ware, “Effectual Calling and Grace,” in Still Sovereign, 211.
[31]Ibid., 216.
[32]Ibid., 223.


No other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ (I Corinthians 3:11).