A Preview Review of Steve's Book on Hell

[mattrose]

A Preview Review of Steve Gregg’s
All You Want to Know About Hell

It should be hard to write a book on hell that is a page turner, but Steve Gregg has done just that in his examination of the three Christian views of God’s final solution to the problem of sin. The Publisher’s title, of course, could be taken in a number of different ways. Is this book (emphasis on “All”) really an exhaustive encyclopedic volume on hell? No. Does it provide a thorough enough treatment of the subject for most interested readers (emphasis on “You”)? Yes. I actually interpreted the title in a different way. All I want to “know” (experience) of hell is some thoughtful Christian thinking on the subject… and that is exactly what I found in this book.

There is something many may secretly want to know about hell. Given the terrible nature of the traditional doctrine, conservative Christians might wonder if there are other legitimate interpretations of the biblical material. Few like the traditional view, but not many have been exposed to a fair treatment of its alternatives. This is the right book at, in my opinion, the right time for Christians to give a fresh evaluation to the subject of hell.

Part of writing the right book on this subject is starting with the right question. At the heart of Mr. Gregg’s book is the WHY question. Why hell? What is the purpose of this place? He helps the reader by reminding us of three basic facts about fire. Fire can cause pain. Fire can consume. Fire can refine. These facts about fire correspond to the three views of hell respectively. Does God expose the wicked to fire (either literally or metaphorically) as retributive punishment, to extinguish, or to purify?

I won’t attempt to cover all the best this book has to offer. It contains a great collection of relevant quotes, information, and exegesis. Buy the book! But I will summarize my appraisal of how the author handles each of the three views.

On the Traditional View
The view that hell is a place of endless torment seems to have been the majority position amongst Christians for quite some time. It is legitimate, in my opinion, to give the sharpest critique to the position in power. The power of tradition is too often underestimated amongst Evangelicals. Sometimes we need our traditions to be shaken in order to actually read the Bible well. There are some jabs thrown, which some will interpret as an unfair bias, but I believe the author has done us a great service in his handling of the traditional view. He accomplishes this by reminding us (or teaching us) of the fact that all three views existed in the first few centuries of the early church and by alerting us to the fact that the traditional doctrine is, indeed, based on merely possible interpretations of a small handful of passages.

On the Conditionalist View
This view receives the shortest treatment of the three, but the author does provide some of the best defenses and objections to the doctrine sometimes referred to as annihilationism. Truth be told, some of the more important showcases of the strength of this view come in its offer of alternative interpretations of the passages used to defend the traditional view. That is not to say, however, that the conditionalist view doesn’t have a vast array of scriptures seemingly in its favor. Indeed, Gregg tends to paint this perspective as the one with the most (at least) surface-level support.

On the Restorationist View
What sets Mr. Gregg’s book apart from some others designed for Evangelical audiences is its inclusion of the restorationist view. Conditionalism has arguably (though quite tentatively) been accepted into the Evangelical debate, but restorationism is an even more discomforting dinner guest for many conservative Christians. This author, though, welcomes the evangelical universalists to the table for discussion. He wonders if a common objection to this view (it is too good to be true) should actually be turned on its head (is it too good NOT to be true?) given the revelation we have of God’s character. A key question in all of this is, of course, whether repentance is possible post-judgment. The lack of clarity on that subject in Scripture is highlighted.

I can’t think of a better resource for a Christian to be introduced to the strengths and weaknesses of each perspective. Not only are the individual chapters well-written and full of insight, the author also provides helpful summary charts of the arguments at the end of the book.

Since my review, up to this point, may sound a bit like a marketing campaign for this book (I do hope the book gets into many hands!), I will offer two mild critiques (which may reveal my own biases on this subject).

First, it felt, at times, like the author depended on conditionalist arguments to deconstruct some of the traditionalist sounding verses, but then used the space created by that exegesis to create room for, primarily, the restorationist view. I argued earlier that it is appropriate to deal a bit more harshly with the view currently in power, perhaps it is also necessary to deal a bit more generously with the view newest to the table?

Second, I would have personally enjoyed more discussion about the possibility of a hybrid model (we get just 1 paragraph/100 words of this sort of consideration at the conclusion of the book). I think this would have been beneficial because a mixed model would seemingly eliminate some of the rough edges around the first two views and make any dogmatic stance on the third view all the less compelling. The author certainly makes the restorationist view sound more appealing when he speculates that 1% or less of human beings throughout history will end up saved unless the restorationist view is true. Aside from questioning such a speculative number, I will simply point out that a merged model would resolve the emotional tension of that argument. That being said, one book cannot accomplish everything on a subject as important as hell.

If you’re looking for a book that will tell you what to think on this subject, this isn’t the right book. This book will help you with HOW to think about hell and provide you with many of the most important considerations. I’ll let the author speak for himself concerning the overall purpose of the book: “The one fact, above all others, which I have desired to get across, is that our view of hell is inseparably joined to our view of God. I believe that many Christians have simply assumed that they already know what the Bible teaches about hell, and have formed their notions of the character of God to accommodate their theory. My suggestion is that this is doing things backwards.” Our thoughts on hell matter precisely because the purpose of hell says something about the character of our God. The author helps us to think longer and larger about this life and death subject.

[steve7150]

The author certainly makes the restorationist view sound more appealing when he speculates that 1% or less of human beings throughout history will end up lost unless the restorationist view is true. Aside from questioning such a speculative number, I will simply point out that a merged model would resolve the emotional tension of that argument. That being said, one book cannot accomplish everything on a subject as important as hell.









I think you meant 1% will end up saved. A merged model AKA the fourth view ,can we call it "hybrid hell"? In your next to last sentence you stated that ones view of hell will be connected to ones view of God and if this holds up then the traditional view of hell is in for rough sledding.

[mattrose]

I think you meant 1% will end up saved.

Thanks for catching.. I edited accordingly

If I had to pick a view, I would indeed pick a hybrid model. I think hell is a place of eventual extinction, but the 'eventual' leaves room for repentance. I see no good reason why God wouldn't welcome repentant sinners then as He does now.

[steve7150]

If I had to pick a view, I would indeed pick a hybrid model. I think hell is a place of eventual extinction, but the 'eventual' leaves room for repentance. I see no good reason why God wouldn't welcome repentant sinners then as He does now.










Yes i think so also, as it seems to be able to best answer all objections although i still have this burning in the bosom feeling as the Mormons say, that because CU is God's actual will it may indeed happen.

[Singalphile]

Thanks, mattrose. Interesting. I read your thesis also, and it is good. I figured I'd hold off an any discussion until after I read Steve's book.

I'd go along with some kind of hybrid view, but I reckon that the traditional view will remain the majority view unless a pope and some very high-profile protestants change their minds.

[mattrose]

Thanks, mattrose. Interesting. I read your thesis also, and it is good. I figured I'd hold off an any discussion until after I read Steve's book.

I'd go along with some kind of hybrid view, but I reckon that the traditional view will remain the majority view unless a pope and some very high-profile protestants change their minds.

I think John Stott could have been elected Pope if the protestants wanted to cast ballots

[Roberto]

For those interested, there is quite a bit of the book that you can read in the "Look Inside" feature at Amazon. Quite a few portions are presented for perusal. It starts out presenting the problems with the traditional view, this being the major stimulus behind the controversy, that is, the unliveableness for many of the traditional view.

[Roberto]

If I had to pick a view, I would indeed pick a hybrid model. I think hell is a place of eventual extinction, but the 'eventual' leaves room for repentance. I see no good reason why God wouldn't welcome repentant sinners then as He does now.










Yes i think so also, as it seems to be able to best answer all objections although i still have this burning in the bosom feeling as the Mormons say, that because CU is God's actual will it may indeed happen.

What is CU? Christian Universalism?

[steve7150]

What is CU? Christian Universalism?

Roberto

Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:57 pm







Yes. I like CU rather then Universalism because the latter sounds like a Buddhist belief.

[Roberto]

What is CU? Christian Universalism?

Roberto

Posts: 114
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2011 8:57 pm







Yes. I like CU rather then Universalism because the latter sounds like a Buddhist belief.

UR seems more common, doesn't it? At least in my own experience which might differ from yours.