The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Views on Hell

Please check all the views on Hell you believe to be true? Enjoy your research and then support your view:

Please check all the views on Hell you believe to be true? Enjoy your research: multiple choice
	Basil Atkinson’s View (Cambridge)
	Leroy Edwin Froom’s View (Seventh Day Adventist)
	Edward Fudge’s View (Church’s of Christ layman)
	Harold E. Guillebaud’s View (Anglican missionary)
	John Hick’s View (British Philosopher)
	Clark Pinnock’s View (Professor of ST at McMaster Divinity College)
	Bertrand Russell’s View (British Philosopher, mathematician, and social reformer)
	John Stott’s View (Anglican, Langham Partnership International, JSM)
	None of the Above
Votes accepted starting: Sun Apr 17, 2005 1:00 AM You must vote before you can view the results of this poll.

Indeed, “NONE of the above” is the correct answer. Bertrand Russell condemned Christ’s view on hell as morally repugnant. John Hick’s labels the idea that God may inflict unending torment on sinners a “grim fantasy” and “a serious perversion of the Christian Gospel.” Hicks espouses “universalism” (having an unbiblical view of 1 Tim 2:3-4, that “all” would be saved ) and sees an “always” loving God that will “never cease to desire and actively work for the salvation of each created person” (Evil and the God of Love, p. 378-379). Hicks embraces other heresies as well as he taught pluralism (God and the Universe of Faiths) and he does not believe Jesus is the incarnate Son of God (The Myth of God Incarnate).

Clark Pinnock likes some of heretic Hick’s reasoning. He believes in a second chance at death saying, “God does not cease to be gracious to sinners just because they are no longer living” (A Wideness in God’s Mercy, p 170) and then if they don’t make it, the annihilation of the wicked. Even Pinnock admits the lack of Scriptural support for his view, however, he does appeal to 1 Pet 3:19-20 saying that Christ “preached to the spirits in prison.” However, 1 Peter does not record any positive response to Jesus’ preaching and moreover, we would need to grant that Christ went to hell (IMO He didn't, read Berkhof). Even NT Wright gets this correct saying, “The next chapter (1 Peter, especially vv. 17-18) rules out the possibility that ‘those who do not obey God’s gospel’ will be saved” (Towards a Biblical View of Universalism).

John Stott’s (Atkinson’s; Froom’s; Fudge’s; Guillebaud’s) view of annihilationism does not stand up to the scrutiny of Scripture (Rev 22:11, etc.). Stott (please note he may have changed his position, but I have not been able to confirm this even through JSM) does a song and dance on the language of the text of Scripture saying “destruction” (total) is a final state of perdition. Fudge says that "destruction" is for the “utter, absolute, irreversible, annihilation” of the Beast and the Anti-Christ. However, if one reads “the Bible” they are "cast into the lake of fire and brimstone“ (still alive) in Rev 20:10 "and they shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever" (compare 2 Thess 1:9, which cannot be annihilation, because their "eternal destruction from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might" presupposes their continuous existence)! Thus, this argument has no foundation for Stott and others to stand upon. Moreover, if we look at Matt 25:46, “eternal” (aionios) modifies both “punishment” and “life.” Thus, the “life” extends as long as the “punishment” will extend! This is an insurmountable problem for Stott and others in his camp. Guillebaud, an annihilationist, sums it up nicely (somewhat), saying;

Thus, who would like to make a few brief points in defending the true view of hell?

Some books worth considering here are:

Hell on Trail by Robert Peterson and The Other Side of the Good News, by Larry Dixon (the normal warnings apply).

Nope--You're wrong again

Pray tell how? Seriously, what concerning Stott's view do you find correct? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/scratch1.gif" alt="" /> Please defend your position.

Didn't I read somewhere that John Stott recanted his heretical position and returned to the Traditional (aka: biblical) view, perhaps after reading J.I. Packer's criticism? Maybe it is simply wishful thinking on my part. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/giggle.gif" alt="" />

I've never really understood this verse. Could someone elaborate? Thanks

I received similar information and e-mailed JSM (sometime ago) and received back an e-mail basically stating they don't have time to answer e-mails. Dr. Chapell believes that Dr. Stott is, despite his views on hell, "still within the pale of an evangelical truth," but this view in different forms was condemned as heresy in ages past. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" /> J. I. Packer's article in I believe Evangelical Affirmations was good <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/BigThumbUp.gif" alt="" />

The one site I've seen that mentions Stott recanting his heretical view on hell now no longer says he's recanted of it.

I've heard it preached that it was the pre-incarnate Christ who preached to those in Noah's day, and now those people are in prison.

Jonathan Edwards wrote this sermon on it.

Here's a sermon by OPC minister Bill Baldwin.

And here is one by John Piper.

I just sent another e-mail, maybe I will get a rational answer this time.

After burial, Christ, true God and true man, descended into hell, conquered the devil, and proclaimed His victory to the damned spirits in prison as part of their punishment.

I don't understand how Berkhof and the others can deny Christ's physical descent into hell. In the Apostle's Creed, we confess, "Jesus Christ... was crucified, dead, and buried: he descended into hell." Does the Reformed Church reject the Apostle's Creed?

As is typical, the answer is because this is nowhere to be found in Scripture, even though some man-made document you make your source of truth states it to be so. The issue is what does "he descended into hell" (taken from the later versions of the Apostle's Creed, and a few other Confessions and Catechisms mean? The majority of the Reformers understood that phrase to mean that Christ was put into the grave (hades) and not that He actually went to "hell", i.e., the abode of the spirits of the damned. Such a view is fraught with problems which contradict other doctrines which are far more perspicuous and held to be true.

One of the more interesting and I believe excellent explanations of this phrase was written by Herman Hoeksema in his 3-volume set, The Triple Knowledge: an Exposition of the Heidelberg Catechism, on "Lord's Day 16". I have attached this section as a Word.doc. If there is anyone who wants to read this but can't open it, send me a PM and I'll e-mail you a copy as a ".pdf" file.

In His grace,

Pilgrim,

Maybe our thoughts about the Apostles Creed need "Reformed"?

Nowhere in scripture is there such a thing as the "Apostles Creed".

After all, why do Christians so admire a creed that has dubious and possibly heretical content? Then top this all off with a lie for a title.

Denny

Roms 3:22-24

All the churches I'm familiar with agrees with Pilgrim's assessment. I even know a few churches that remove the phrase he descended into hell from the creed when citing it in public worship. I'm not sure if that is proper or not.

Adopted,

I do think that the "Apostle's Creed", albeit with a dubious title, is solidly biblical in its content and thus I have no problem affirming it. The "he descended into hell" phrase is not found in older copies and thus I suspect it was added at some later date. However, I agree with Hoeksema, that if understood correctly (read: biblically) the phrase is fine, although it has obviously led to much disagreement as to what it actually means. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" /> What needs "reforming", IMHO, is the erroneous views associated with that phrase.

In His Grace,