VERITAS: Hell - By Craig Branch

“Imagine there’s no heaven. It’s easy if you try—no hell below us, above us only sky.”
John Lennon, Imagine 1971

In 1995, British Bible teacher and evangelist, John Blanchard authored a book titled, Whatever Happened to Hell? That same year, Robert Peterson, systematic theology professor at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis wrote a book, Hell on Trial. The next year Zondervan published Four Views on Hell.

Some may wonder how the doctrine of hell falls under the apologetic category. There are actually a number of applications. For example, the following common objections leveled against the truth claims of Christianity have ties to the doctrine of hell: If God is all good and in control, how can there be evil and suffering in the world?

This common objection is tied to the emotional and philosophical objection to the fairness and moral question of how a good, loving, or even just God would allow eternal torment to people like a parent who never accepted Christ, or a “good” Jew, Mother Theresa, Christopher Reeves, or Benjamin Franklin.

Another objection related to the above is what about those who haven’t heard—if they went to hell without having a chance to hear about Christ, that wouldn’t be fair. Don’t all religions eventually lead to heaven? The implications of the existence and fairness of a literal, eternal, tormenting punishing and separation from God are imbedded in these objections.

There are numerous more overt expressions of denial of the Biblical doctrine of hell. Certain cults like Seventh-day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Unity School of Christianity, Christian Science, numerous old Worldwide Church of God splinter groups, and Mormonism deny the doctrine. Add millions of Hindus, Buddhists, and myriads of new agers who deny the Biblical doctrine of hell, teaching instead forms of reincarnation.

There has also been a modern evolvement of liberal theology that, while often denying Biblical inerrancy, has embraced the humanistic philosophical objections to hell. Prominent theologians in this area are Friedrich Schleiermacher, Paul Tillich, John Hick, and John Shelby Spong.

In addition to this continuing modernist rationale, we are experiencing a tidal wave of postmodernism denying the ability to know or claim absolute truth and accepting pluralism and universalism. Thus, the “truth” rests within an individual’s subjective experience or emotion. Hell has no place in this mindset.

Thus, with “truth” relegated to sinful, finite man’s emotion and rationale, the doctrine of hell loses its acceptance. Research surveys demonstrate the erosion of the traditional belief in hell, corresponding to the growth of modernism and liberalism, as well as postmodern relativism.

In 1978, the doctrine of an eternal punishing hell was believed by 70% of the U.S. population. In 1988, a Newsweek poll reflected a drop in that belief to 58%. In that same year, that belief was held by 39% of Australians. A 1989 Gallup poll revealed that only 24% of Britain’s population believed in a traditional hell.

Barna’s 2003 research revealed that the percentage of American’s believing in an eternal punishing hell fell from 58% in 1988 to 32%. Indeed, the many common usages of hell in everyday conversation demonstrate a number of various attitudes regarding hell which reflects a casualness, a watering down, a dulling of our conscience on the actual state of hell.

This trend is reflected in the same Barna study where 34% of Americans believe it is possible to communicate with the dead. Within that group, 48% of the younger generation believe it, compared to 35% of the middle aged and 15 % of those over 58.

The width of this range shows up in expressions like “I went through hell” (painful experience); “I knocked the hell out of the ball” (sheer power); “That was a hell of a party” (enjoyable); “Hell of a chance of that happening” (not likely); “Raise hell” or “angry as hell” (exaggerated, trouble). I even recently saw an advertisement for a Christmas holiday party dip called “Heluva Party.”

Even in the Church, the topic of hell seems to be avoided. When was the last time you heard a sermon on the topic of hell?

Thus far you have understood the apologetic need for establishing and setting forth the reality of hell. But the apologetic need and proof goes beyond those deceived by certain cults, Buddhists, Hindus, new agers, atheists, agnostics, liberal Protestants, and Catholics.

There are also a small number of respected evangelical theologians who struggle with the philosophical dilemma over the fairness of a loving God establishing an eternal state of horrific punishing of people who are far less hideous and deserving than Hitler or Stalin.

Theologians like John Stott, Philip Edgcombe Hughes, John Wenham, F. F. Bruce, and Clark Pinnock either embrace annihilationism, conditionalism, or claim to be tentative or agnostic on the topic. Some attempt to argue their positions from Scripture through cherry picking proof texts. John Stott, unlike liberals, affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, and tries to make a Biblical case of annihilationism via proof-texts.

J.I. Packer responds to Stott and others: “Respectfully, I disagree, for their biblical arguments are to my mind flimsy special pleading, and the feelings that want conditionalism (annihilationism) to be true seem to me to reflect, not superior sensitivity, but secular sentimentalism.” [1]

In Robert Morey’s excellent expositional and apologetic book, Death and the Afterlife, he describes the historical cycle within the Church and culture on the doctrine of hell with a series of “After ____ comes ___.” [2] He concludes, “After acknowledgement comes indifference” when hell, the negative side of the gospel is acknowledged, but seldom referred to in comparison to the “positive side” of heaven.

“After indifference comes doubt.” Since hell is not taught and understood, then human doubts begin to emerge with thoughts or positions that hell is unkind, unloving, or unfair. “After doubt comes denial.” This is demonstrated in the rise of liberalism, contemporary cults, universalists, and even a few controversial orthodox embracers of annihilation or other theories denying hell.

As the number of those who deny hell multiplies drastically, as we are seeing today, the pressure grows to defend the Scriptural teaching on hell. So Morey notes that “after denial comes irritation” and then “affirmation”, and exhorts the Church to teach and defend the doctrine, lest “the church returns to its dogmatic slumbers.”

In this issue of Areopagus, we address these objections. The first article, “Eternal Punishment: The Biblical Evidence”, by Ray Clendenen sets forth the revelatory Biblical exposition of hell. He demonstrates the consistency of both the Old Testament revelation and Jesus and His followers in the writing of the New Testament.

This is important because many try to make a case that the Old Testament teaching is in conflict with the condition of the lost in the New Testament. Clendenen responds to the claim that Paul is silent on the topic as well.

Clendenen’s article also sets forth the case that a consistent and true exposition of scripture negates the belief in annihilationism and universalism. Those who still do not agree with the doctrine of hell are not allowed to do so on the basis of scripture.

The next article, “Can a Just and Loving God Send People to Hell?” is written by ARC’s managing editor, Dr. Steve Cowan. Dr. Cowan first expresses the emotional and philosophical objections and then builds the case.

He begins with the presuppositional-theological rationale and proceeds from there to address the just and loving God conundrums. He then reveals the faulty premises and logical fallacies of the counter sentiments.

The Journal concludes with an article by Gregory Cochran, “Hell No: Why Preaching Hell is Insufficient for Saving Faith”. Cochran’s purpose is to make sure there is a Biblical balance maintained in the way we emphasize or proclaim the doctrine of Hell.

Cochran details his concern that an overemphasis on hell creates the wrong motive to respond to the gospel-- a selfish motive. He focuses on the famous evangelistic content of Jonathan Edward’s sermons. He maintains that Edward’s never prioritized the topic of hell in his messages. As he writes, “Hell is not, on its own, sufficient for saving faith”, and “avoiding Hell is not the point of the gospel”.

One apologetics issue on the afterlife not addressed directly by our contributors is a response to the belief in reincarnation. As mentioned earlier, there is a significant growth of Hinduism and Buddhism in the U.S., either by immigration or conversion. In addition, there has been a significant influence and growth of the New Age Movement, or eastern mysticism, in many forms, often derived from Hinduism and Buddhism.

And there are many followers of cults and the occult like Christian Science, Unity, Wicca, Oprah’s frequent parade of New Age celebrities, as well as popular movements like transcendental meditation and yoga, which often lead to eastern mysticism and its underlying belief in reincarnation.

The growth of these movements has clearly impacted our mission field in the U.S. and Europe. Gallup and Barna polls in 2003 both found that 18-20 % of Americans believe in reincarnation, including 10 % of “born-again” Christians. A late 2007 Harris Poll found that 21% of Americans believe in reincarnation while 29 % were “not sure” (www.harrisinteractive.com, “The Religions and Other Beliefs of Americans”, Nov. 29, 2007).

Briefly, the doctrine of reincarnation operates under the “law of karma”, that one’s good works (however defined) must outweigh negative works in order to progress spiritually. So, after death, this natural law of karma determines in what state one will return.

In Hinduism, this process is called “transmigration of the soul”, where one can come back in human or animal form. In other eastern expressions, one returns in another human body in a condition based on earned benefits or deficits.

The ultimate goal is “Nirvana”, where one becomes fully absorbed into the Absolute or Divine (pantheism or panentheism). This process can take many, many lifetimes.

This belief is obviously at odds with Christianity, which reveals one true, perfect, Being—God and that “it is appointed for man to die once and then comes the judgment” (Heb. 9:27). Salvation is by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone and perfection is a once and for all imputation of Christ’s perfect righteousness through faith in His finished work.

Thus, reincarnationists often attempt to validate reincarnation with the Bible. Common passages (mis)used to attempt to support reincarnation are John 3:3, Matthew 11:14, and John 9:1-3. In John 3:3, Jesus tells a Jewish leader, Nicodemus that “unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” The argument is that the necessity to be born again refers to reincarnation.

But, when one applies normal rules of interpretation, the immediate context must be considered as well as the use of a word or concept with the rest of the Scripture. To be “born again” is a spiritual rebirth that has already happened when a person is converted to Christianity by the indwelling Holy Spirit (1 Pet. 1:3, 23; Gal. 4:4-7; Rom 8:1-11).

And, in Nicodemus’ response to Jesus, he certainly acknowledges that physical rebirth is outside Judaism. Jesus responds that He is talking about a spiritual rebirth only, not a physical one.

Another popular passage used by reincarnationists is where Jesus points to John the Baptist, saying “he is the Elijah who was to come” (Matt. 11:14). They say John is the reincarnation of Elijah. They also point to the prophecy in Malachi 4:5: “See, I will send you the prophet Elijah before the great and dreadful day of the Lord comes.” They say, therefore, John must be Elijah.

But, again, when one regards other related Scripture (and the entire message of Scripture), there is another consistent understanding. Reading 2 Kings 2:9 and Luke 1:17, we see that having the spirit of Elijah is referring to the prophetic nature of his ministry, not the identity of his personhood.

John specifically denied being Elijah (John 1:21). Elijah did not die but was assumed into heaven like Enoch (2 Kings 2:11) and even later appeared as himself, not John, on the Mount of Transfiguration with Moses (Matt. 17:3-4).

In John 9:1-3, reincarnationists hold that since the Jews asked if a man was born blind because he sinned, then they must believe that he accumulated negative karma (sinned) in a previous life. But, even if some Jewish rabbi had speculated that a baby could sin in the womb, Jesus corrected them in His response that it was not his sin, nor his parents, eliminating any reincarnation option.

Some point to past life recall as evidence of reincarnation but objective studies have demonstrated far too many inconsistencies with details and facts recalled, as well as suggestions made by an involved “psychic”. From a Christian standpoint, any factual information given in so-called past life recalls can also be attributed to demonic activity.

The demise of the Biblical doctrine of hell and its substitutes offered do not do justice to the infinite distance between the perfection of the Holy God and the sinfulness of man. Neither does it do justice to the grace and mercy of God.

Even though hell is not an essential doctrine on which the Church stands or falls, to deny or attempt to reconstruct it seriously compromises the essential doctrines of sin and the atonement. Christians must embrace and teach the doctrine of hell because of its prominent place in Scripture and our worldview. Along with the love of God, it also should motivate us to share the grace of the cross with those outside of Christ.

Recommended Books:

Craig Branch is director of the Apologetics Resource Center, Birmingham, Alabama.