The Narrow Path Ministries

Hi Steve. I'm curious if the process of researching and writing your book on Hell has helped you personally to come to a stronger position of which view you hold now? What is your present view at this point?

Essentially, I became more aware of the strength of the universalist case than I had been before doing the research—but this is not surprising, since, until about five years ago, I was only vaguely familiar with many of its arguments. Of the three views, it was the one about which I knew the least, and for which I was naturally in the position to learn the most through thorough research.

I am even more doubtful about the traditional case than before I did the research.

The conditionalist case seems approximately as strong to me today as it did before conducting my recent special studies. I had read and appreciated most of its arguments pretty thoroughly when I gave my lecture on the three views of hell, which must have been almost ten years ago.

The bottom line is that I fluctuate between conditionalism and restorationism, and it occurs to me that a combination of the two may prove to be the case—i.e., that unbelievers may be given opportunity to repent postmortem, but that those who remain obstinate may be annihilated.

I still have not settled the matter.

Thanks for that Steve. I'm definitely leaning toward restorationism but agree that it may well be a combination of the two. Looking back on it now, I really did not think through the traditional view very well. I just accepted it because its was all that was presented to me in my early walk. I was surprised by the relative weakness of this view.

Taking Gods character into view as shown through Jesus, and finally settling what Aion, Aionios, and Apollumi meant in early NT times were major factors that did it for me. Dr. Keizers dissertation on Aion / Aionios was extremely persuasive. Hope Beyond Hell by Gerry Beauchemin and a few hundred hours on the Tentmaker site were also really helpful.