Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment by Christopher W. Morgan

Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment Reviews

• 
  David

  Over the last many years, I’ve read a good many books on hell. I suppose it may be my obsession. At some point in my young Christian life I was confronted with the realization that most of my friends - most people actually - were destined to burn in unending torture. How could a good, loving God allow that?
  
  Well, to make a long story short, I’ve moved from hopeful inclusivism (hopefully more people will be saved through Jesus than just a few Christians) to annihilation (those who are not saved by Jesus will not suffer forever but eventually, mercifully cease to exist) to universal reconciliation (God will ultimately save all through Jesus). Admittedly, most of the books I’ve read that helped me have been from Annihilation or Universal Reconciliation perspectives. The one exception, probably the one that pushed me over the edge, was Four Views of Hell which set out all the views next to each other. In that one, I found the unending hell view the weakest.
  
  Years later, I figured it might be worth reading a book defending the traditional position. So here we are…
  
  The first chapter is by Albert Mohler and is on the disappearance of hell in modern theology. This was sort of off-putting because, to put all my cards on the table, I see Mohler as a complete hypocrite due to his politics. Decades ago he was very critical of Bill Clinton, so when Trump ran in 2016 Mohler stated that if he ever supported Trump, he’d owe Clinton an apology. Then in 2020 he endorsed Trump. Clinton is still waiting on that apology. He’s also given a platform to a rather vulgar atheist, Mohler has a history of supporting liars and cheats if they agree with his politics.
  
  What does this have to do with this book? It damages the credibility of the author. Character matters (or at least it used to). Or maybe character doesn’t actually matter? Its kind of interesting, actually, how the primary verse that argues for unending suffering in hell is Matthew 25:46. Folks like Mohler always go here first. Yet, they rarely notice why people end up in hell here. It is not because they believed the wrong thing about God, its due to their unjust act. You’d think people who believe in a literal unending hell based on Matthew 25 would be more cautious with hypocritical words. But anyway…
  
  Mohler, like most authors in this book, assumes the Eternal Conscious Torment (ECT) view is simply correct and has always been the belief of Christianity. Thus, he claims Origen presented the “first major challenge to the traditional doctrine of hell” (location 195). The reality is, in Origen’s day there was no “traditional doctrine” of hell yet. This rhetorical move ignores that all three main views had support in the early church and none could claim to be the tradition until much later.
  
  Then in the next paragraph Mohler mentions Origen’s teaching was rejected at the 5th Ecumenical Council in 553. First, recent scholarship has shown that it was not nearly this simple (interested readers can check out Al Kimel’s article here -
  https://afkimel.wordpress.com/2020/05...). Second, is Mohler Catholic or Orthodox? I didn’t realize he put stock in these councils. Does he accept the findings of the 6th and 7th ecumenical councils?
  
  Along with attacking Origen, there is no mention of Gregory of Nysa whose orthodox credentials were impecccable and who was just as much a teacher of universal salvation as Origen. Seems like Mohler is stacking the deck in his favor, only naming Origen. Of course, smearing Origen is a tradition as old as believing in unending hell! Also missing from Mohler’s survey of history is George MacDonald (though Lewis Carrol gets a mention!).
  
  As I read this book, I made lots of comments and cannot possible share all of them. It was kind of amazing to see the nearly totally different portrayals of God, justice, love and so on. The rest of this review will be some scattered thoughts.
  
  Justice comes up often and Mohler argues that Retributive justice has been at the core of human law since premodern times. Retributive justice sees punishment as necessary for justice to be done; so if God is infinite and you sin against God then infinite justice demands unending hell. This just seems overly cruel and many thinkers (and Christians!) have chosen to pursue Restorative justice. Actually, retributive punishment that fits the crime can fit in perfectly fine with restorative justice. The form of retributive justice, where finite sins deserve infinite punishment, is what is out of whack. While Mohler and his crew would argue anything short of infinite punishment is a lack of justice or does not take sin seriously, that’s just not true. Instead, it gives a punishment that fits the crime with the goal of restoration. This is a much more Christian ideal as restoration is kind of God’s thing.
  
  Unless you think its not, I guess.
  
  Following this, Mohler seems to lament penal reforms when “individuals began to sympathize with the criminal, often thinking of themselves in the criminal’s place”
  
  I was miffed by this; is this is a bad thing? Sympathy? Putting ourselves in someone else’s shoes?
  
  Mohler’s chapter sets the tone for the book. The chapter on the Old Testament was interesting, though it was a whole lot of pages to say what we already know: the Old Testament says little on the afterlife and not really anything on hell. Chapter three is Jesus on hell and Jesus certainly did speak of it more than anyone else. The author here, Yarborough, like the rest, assumes hell lasts forever and thus interprets the passages to say that. He notes at one point it is “possible” to interpret terms such as “perish” and “death” as excluding ECT but not necessary. But he doesn’t prove the opposite, that it is necessary to interpret them as ECT either.
  
  One of the biggest things that bothers me is the false sense of lament over those who are suffering. In the chapter on Jesus, Yarborough writes of the horrors of child abuse, internet porn, AIDS, genocide, abortion, racism, consumerism and other human ills. These things are certainly awful. But the God portrayed in these chapters will do far worse to far more people. Its one thing to argue that humans freely choose life without God and God allows them to (Lewis’ idea of the doors of hell being locked from the inside). Its a whole different thing to argue that God retributively punishes people, actively casting them into hell forever (though this is the tradition from Tertullian to Augustine). Another human can inflict a few moments of suffering on another. Perhaps a few people are capable of causing others to suffer for extended periods. Then these suffering people exit this life, meet God, and God inflicts unending suffering on them.
  
  Add to this that many (most?) of the contributors here are strict Calvinists. To them then, the people who are destined for hell were created solely to be sent to hell. God did not elect them from before the beginning of time. God is the ultimate cause of all things. God is even the cause of sin. This picture of God inevitably reduces to a Voluntarist/Ockhamist theology where what is right is right because God commands it. God could have commanded murder to be a good and if so, it would be. If you think this, then torturing babies would become good if God does it.
  
  One problem here is this leads to the negation of all language. God’s goodness is so different, contrary, to our own that our language is meaningless. “Love” or “Good” mean something completely different for us then when applied to God (the language for God here is equivocal). Yet how can we trust God? Perhaps God lied to us? Why not? Because the Bible says God does not lie? Who says lying, like murder and torture, does not become a good when God does it?
  
  God’s ways are higher than our ways after all. If the definitions are totally different, then how can we trust God? Maybe God lied.
  
  To be fair, there are things written here that I agree with. Yarborough writes, “the God who has created the world and promises that he is even now redeeming it” (location 1996). Except, God’s only redeeming some of it, according to the authors of this book.
  
  Next is Doug Moo, with a whole chapter defending hell in Paul even though Paul never really mentions hell. Like the other authors, it seems that Moo is just assuming his doctrine of hell and reading it into Paul. To me it seems weird to interpret “in Adam al fall and in Christ all are made alive” as meaning “all kinds of people are made alive.” This chapter more than others revealed the flaw here. An author like Brad Jersak admits you can make a case for all three views based on scripture. Advocates of ECT are forced to make scripture a monolith where every single verse supports their view. Its such a stretch that it ultimately shows the weakness of their view. Scripture is not even close to as obvious in this as they say.
  
  Greg Beale’s chapter on Revelation is good of course. Beale’s massive commentary on Revelation was hugely helpful to me. And 2/3 of the verses that most clearly do possibly speak of unending hell are in Revelation. But Beale never addresses the very end, when the kings of the earth who were cast into the lake of fire are invited to enter the open gates of the city. Rather than dissecting 1 or 2 verses, it makes more sense to see Revelation in line with the rest of the hopeful scriptures. Even here, at the end of scripture, we have hope.
  
  Robert Peterson’s chapter is on systematic implications of hell and he leans hard into the predestination stuff:
  
  “If we press as far as Scripture allows concerning the reasons people perish, we come to the further fact that God has sovereignly chosen multitudes for salvation before the creation of the world and has passed over others, allowing them to reap condemnation for their sins. With Scripture we confess that God stands behind the destiny of every human being. But with Scripture we also confess that he does so asymmetrically with respect to the elect and the reprobate. He is proactive in election; he grants grace to those who would perish without it. But he is passive in reprobation, allowing sinners to receive what their sins deserve” (location 3986).
  
  This is just nonsensical. If my wife and I decided to have two kids and love one and torture the other just because, we would rightly be seen as monsters. I know, God’s ways are higher than our ways! But again, torture does not become right when God does it. Besides, doesn’t it make more sense that God’s ways are higher than our ways so God is MORE loving?
  
  In chapter 8 JI Packer critiques universalism. Packer’s Knowing God was hugely influential to me as a twenty year old. I’ve been tempted to return, but after this chapter I fear I may be disappointed. This chapter was the worst in the book. He oddly begins with a description of all the people universalism claims will be saved:
  
  “Applied to our six-billion global-village world, multicultural, multifaith, and endlessly diversified as it is, the scope of universalism is breathtaking. It covers all the dead from earliest times as well as all the living, both present and future. It embraces all the adherents of all the religions and cults that ever have been or shall be—theistic, deistic, pantheistic, polytheistic, atheistic, trinitarian, unitarian, syncretist, Satanist, animist, shamanist, white- or black-magic oriented, earthor self-centered, tribal or ethnic, primitive or sophisticated. It extends to the many millions who have no religion and no interest in religion, including those who, like Bertrand Russell, believe that “when I die I shall rot, and nothing of my ego will survive.”2 Bloody-handed practitioners of treachery, genocide, and torture, and bloody-minded devotees of personal cruelty and child abuse are included; no one is left out. Universalism thus asserts the final salvation of, for instance, Judas, Hitler, Genghis Khan, Stalin, and Saddam Hussein, to name a few. These are test cases to have in mind when assessing the universalist claim” (Location 4118).
  
  All I could comment there was, “yes, God’s grace is amazing.” Often in this book the author’s argue universalist do not take sin seriously enough. It becomes apparent as you read, these authors do not take God’s grace seriously enough. Packer then says most universalists concede it is not clearly taught in the Bible, which is news to Gregory of Nysa, Origen, George MacDonald, Brad Jersak, Thomas Talbot and so many others. I’m not sure if its intentional or unintentional error here.
  
  Packer next demonstrates a misunderstanding of God’s love and human freedom. He writes,
  
  “Some have based this confidence in their belief that, after death as before, God is sovereign in effectual calling; others have rooted it in a glowing vision—a somewhat incoherent vision, it must be said—of God persuasively wearing down free human agents till, in some sense against their will, unbelievers bow to his will. (Clearly, this is not meant to sound like brainwashing, though it does” (location 4170).
  
  Here we have a guy who believes God unconditionally elects some folks and the grace given them is irresistible. Yet, when this grace is extended to all it becomes brainwashing? For most ECT advocates, God does not really want to save all. Packer adds to this a small God who does not know how. Its not brainwashing to treat an addict or sick person, to bring them to wholeness and help them learn to choose what is best. God is the Good. Humans are messed up so we choose lesser goods. We think these goods are good for us, but we are wrong. When we are healed, and our eyes are open, we freely choose.
  
  One example is, imagine you’re in a room with two doors. Behind one is a lion but you don’t know which. Then someone tells you. Are you more or less free once you know which door holds the man-eating lion? Freedom has to act towards a good end, and knowing the good end for us makes us more free. Freeing us from slavery to sin so we can choose God makes us more free. Not brainwashed.
  
  By the time Packer brought in the story of the rich man in hell in Luke 16, I knew his chapter was getting hopeless. This is a parable that takes place before the general resurrection. To make it about the final destination of all people doesn’t fit.
  
  Actually, one more thing on Packer’s chapter. He quotes another theologian arguing that universalists say all creatures will be reconciled but do not explain how this can be if humans are free. I think David Bentley Hart easily explained this (given, his book came out after this). I alluded to it above. If we see a human run into a burning building just for the fun of being burned, knowing it is going to harm them, we would not see this as a “free”choice. Or at least, we’d see this person as insane. Once their insanity was healed and they were given more truth about what is actually good, they would learn to freely choose what is good for them.
  
  Anyway, Hart (and Talbot) make this argument much better.
  
  Oh geez, one more thing on Packer - he claims universalists do not understand sin. Not sure why this is surprising, it seems a common attack in this book. He then adds more on freedom, “Bodily addictions such as pill-popping and heroin-shooting can, we know, defy all attempts at therapy; is there any reason to suppose that the habit of sin will be easier to talk its addicts out of, even when our loving God is doing the talking?” (location 4638).
  
  Yes. That’s precisely the point. God is infinitely powerful and infinitely loving and knows exactly how to cure people that we finite humans think cannot be cured.
  
  The next chapter is a specific response to Annihilation. I could say more but I’m running out of space.
  .
  The final chapter is pastoral theology, by Sinclair Ferguson. He begins by writing, “Hell is not the fruit of God’s good creation for humanity but the consequence of humankind’s rebellion and perversion” (5448). Right. Exactly. Yet, in ECT this consequence is never overcome by God. It remains forever as a stain, an unreconciled blemish, in creation.
  
  Having just read Bulgakov, the differences here are stark. Bulgakov’s argument rests in a coherent view of God and evil - God does not create evil and evil will one day be no more. It is hard to see how if evil lasts forever (in hell) this is not some kind of Manichaean dualism where two powers are forever entangled (God and Evil). ECT is incoherent.
  
  Finally, Ferguson attempts to answer the question of how a person could be happy in heaven if others are in hell. His answer is that the Saints rejoice. In other words, if your child or spouse or mother is suffering in hell, you will learn to see that suffering and praise God for it. To be Christlike is to become more callous towards others. For this attitude towards our fellow humans, suffering torment, cannot be love on any definition that remotely makes sense. This reminds me as well of Bulgakov and other theologians who have argued we are all connected as one humanity. No one can be saved unless all are saved. In the end, this picture of humanity, freedom, love and God presented by universal reconciliation is simply more beautiful than ECT.
  
  In the end, this book helped me realize the debate is not really a question of scripture. All sides use scripture and think the other side misinterprets. I am more compelled by the scriptural arguments of Universal Reconciliation and Annihilation (reconciling those two views is a separate issue) than I am by ECT. The scripture arguments just make more sense to me, and many others.
  
  Again, to be clear, I do not think scripture actually teaches ECT and I am not convinced of these arguments. At most there are 3 scriptures that may point this way. The vast majority point elsewhere. I say that because what I say next could be taken by proponents of ECT to claim I discount scripture: there is much more going on than just the piling up of scripture (he with the longest scriptural index at the back of his book is not automatically correct). The picture of God, human freedom, justice, humanity as a whole are all incoherent in light of Eternal Conscious Torment. Maybe that’s not quite fair. The picture of God in Augustinian Calvinism is coherent but this God is not a God of Love. Rather, we get a God of retribution, a violent and capricious deity who saves a few and tortures the rest.
  
  We could put it this way (this is basically from Thomas Talbot)
  1. God desires to save all
  2. God is able to save all
  3. Some will experience unending torture in hell
  
  You cannot affirm all three at once. Calvinists would choose 2 and 3 - God could save all but will only save some. Arminians would go with 1 and 3 - because of their view of freedom, God is unable to save all. Universalists go with 1 and 2.
  
  In other words, I’d maybe rate this book higher if there was more honesty - the God these authors speak of does not really want to save all people. God only loves some. Just say it.
  
  Wrapping up (finally!), many of these authors said their opponents do not take sin seriously enough. I do not think these authors take Jesus, grace and God’s love seriously enough. Because in the end, what wins? God’s love will melt every heart and all humanity will be saved.
• 
  Jon Håversen

  Leste deler av ifm master-avhandling. Jeg synes det var mye svak argumentasjon hvor man unnlater å nevne en rekke av konteksten til en rekke vers (Luk 16 eller Mark 9/Jes 66) og hvor man forutsetter en rekke poeng jeg bare virkelig ikke ser at man kan gjøre, feks at 2. Thess 1:9 (hvor paulus skriver om eternal destruction away from the face of God) hvor det forutsettes at eternal destruction innebærer evig, bevisst pine. En plain lesing av teksten vil jo peke på det motsatte, at det handler om en evig ødeleggelse, i stedet for en evigvarende bevisst pine. Man kan si som f.eks. J. I Packer skriver andre steder at Paulus ikke hadde behøvet å skreve "eternal" destruction om det han mente var ødeleggelse, da kunne han bare skrevet "destruction", men ingen slik type argument kommer, noe som er hårreisende og sjokkerende svakt. På den andre siden er det en del lyspunkt med gode argument for ECT hvor man kombinerer noen tekster fra Matt 25 og Joh åp 20 (i kjent augustine-stil!!) det er et kjempegodt argument for ECT, selv om ect gjerne ikke behøver å være den eneste forklaringen til versene. Fikk noen nye perspektiver på ECT etter å ha lest. Sitter vel igjen med at utslettelsessynet fremdeles er det sterkeste, men at dette er en helt OK+ case for ECT.
• 
  Graham

  I cannot recall ever reading a book so full of logical fallacies and complete misrepresentations and objective factual errors. The history of the doctrine of hell is misrepresented frequently (the repeated claim that Arnobius was the first annihilationist is objectively false, being traceable in the Old Testament, Apocrypha, Qumran, the New Testament, Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, the Didache, Pseudo-Barnabas, and several Rabbinic texts) and the claim that it was condemned by the 5th ecumenical council is completely false (see here:
  http://rethinkinghell.com/2015/08/con... ). Universalism is also well attested in the Patristic era (Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Grgeory of Nyssa, Isaac the Syrian, Maximus the Confessor, Diodore of Tarsus, et. al.). The nonsensical dodging of the linguistic, exegetical arguments of annihilationists and universalists is dumbfounding, and the complete misrepresentation and dismissal (without any actual demonstration) of the actual arguments of annihilationists and universalists is staggering. The strawman tactics and ad hominems employed by scholars who are typically viewed with admiration by evangelicals is truly unfortunate.
  
  The challenges of those who reject eternal torment is not an "attack" on orthodoxy, or a reinventing of hell as the subtitle suggests. It is an honest wrestling with the text of Scripture, the history of the church, systematic theology, and logic. On all fronts, eternal torment cannot be claimed as the exclusive, historical, orthodox position. Instead of actually assessing the actual evidence presented, which is immense, the authors dismiss their critics as either liberals who dismiss the bible for sentimental reasons, or simply eccentric scholars who are overreaching.
  
  Each essay deserves its own review to unpack all the fallacies and misrepresentations. But I am not prepared to walk through each one. But overall this is an example of what happens when adherence to the party-line, a system of assertions overshadows the examination of the evidence.
• 
  Philip

  If this is the best scholarly and scriptural defence of the traditional view of eternal conscious torment then it actually shows the weakness of the position. If you want to hear/read the more scripturally sound and in depth analysis of what the bible actually says about hell then get The Fire That Consumes by Edward Fudge and don’t listen to what this book says about it - read it for yourself!
• 
  Craig Hurst

  If you pay attention to them, the very combination of the words ‘hell under fire‘ should make you pause and think. I suppose that was the intent of the publisher when they came up with the title. Well – it worked. What is ironic about the title Hell Under Fire is that fire is a word that Scripture uses to describe hell. I suppose the subtitle ‘Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment’ implies that the critical nature of modern scholarship towards the doctrine of hell is itself fiery. Do you see the picture forming here? Liberal modern scholarship is exacting its own fire on the traditional orthodox view of hell which includes the description of hell as fire. Is the picture getting clearer? Fire is being used to fight against fire.
  
  Hell Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents Eternal Punishment edited by Christopher Morgan and Robert A. Peterson is a riveting and clear defense of the orthodox position of hell that it is real, eternal and will include conscious suffering. The book has a powerful line up of contributors such as Al Mohler on Modern Theology: The Disappearance of Hell, G.K. Beale on The Revelation on Hell, Douglas Moo on Paul on Hell and J.I. Packer on Universalism: Will Everyone Ultimately Be Saved? The contributors do not mince words in their faithful defense of the historic position of hell. It is not an exaggeration to say that as these authors present the Biblical doctrine of hell they expose the inaccurate and unfounded claims of universalism and annihilationism. Every chapter in this book is worth commenting on but the focus of this review will only be on a few of them.
  
  From the outset Mohler’s words are spot on when it comes to the consequences of redefining hell:
  
  …No doctrine stands alone. Each doctrine is embedded in a system of theological conviction and expression. Take out the doctrine of hell, and the entire shape of Christian theology is inevitably altered (p. 16).
  
  In chapter two Daniel Block presents the Old Testament contribution to the doctrine of hell. Block admittedly states that the OT teaches very little on hell. Block seeks to answer four questions: (1) How does the OT refer to the abode of the dead?, (2) Who occupies the netherworld?, (3) What conditions greet those who enter the netherworld and (4) What evidence does the OT provide for the Christian doctrine of hell as eternal punishment (p. 44)? Most notably are OT passages such as Ezekiel 32:22-23, Isaiah 66:1-17 and Daniel 12:1-3. “Ezekiel offers the fullest description of the deceased in the netherworld in his oracles against the nations (p. 53).” Isaiah clearly shows a contrast between the eternal state of believers and unbelievers and Daniel 12 points to a time in the future when men will see their eternal fate (p. 62). In conclusion to the OT doctrine of hell Block states:
  
  …the general tenor of the Old Testament seems to reflect a conviction that people continue to live even after they die. Logic would suggest that any belief in the resurrection would be based on this supposition…..It is difficult to imagine a doctrine of resurrection without an understanding of the continued existence of the person in some (spiritual) form after death (p. 58-59).
  
  In chapter three Robert Yarbrough handles the passages in the New Testament where Jesus talks about hell. Yarbrough minces no words when it comes to attempts to alter the Biblical doctrine of hell:
  
  The problem is that if Jesus spoke as frequently and directly about hell as Gospel writers claim, then it may not be the Christina message that we end up proclaiming if we modify his doctrine of posthumous existence….If the historic doctrine of hell is to be set aside, it is most of all Jesus’ teachings that must be neutralized (p. 71-72).
  
  Yarbrough first walks through the Gospels to see what Jesus actually said concerning hell. It is clear that Jesus said too much about its reality, eternality and conscious unending punishment to pass it off as temporary and merely used as a scare tactic. Throughout his chapter Yarbrough interacts a lot with Edward W. Fudge, noted annihilationist. Yarbrough honestly engages Fudge’s argument of several passages presenting Fudge’s position is his own words. Fudge believes that while hell is real it will only be the experience of some for a short period of time (p. 77-78) and that “the traditionalist notion of everlasting torment in hell springs directly from that non-biblical teaching (p. 83).” That non-biblical teaching is Greek Platonic philosophy. After addressing the second claim Yarbrough responds by saying,
  
  To demonstrate Plato’s influence it would be helpful to see at least a fair number of patristic authorities explicitly adducing Plato to help ground their interpretation of Jesus’ teaching on hell. To my knowledge no one has produced such a study…..If our aim is to be faithful to Scripture, we must face what Jesus’ teachings have been understood to assert by most biblical interpreters over many centuries, cutting across a wide assortment of confessional and denominational settings…..the frequent first move of discrediting the historical view by accusing it of early and Platonic origin lacks credible basis (p. 87).
  
  In chapter four Douglas Moo deals with Paul on hell. This is perhaps the strongest chapter in the book. From Romans 1:18-2:11 Moo wonderfully points out that,
  
  “Death,” “condemnation,” “wrath,” and the :curse” a;; descend on human beings as a result of Adam’s sin. Human beings are, therefore, already in a state of “perishing.” This condition is fixed forever for those who do not respond to God’s grace in Christ and the work of his spirit. But it is also clear that the condition that follows final judgment is an intensified form of what unbelievers now experience (p. 93).
  
  Moo’s statement here points to what he calls an “inaugurated eschatology” of judgment. People come to death as already condemned because of our relationship to Adam (p. 94; Rom. 5:12-21). Moo also aptly notes that “Paul and his readers assumed the doctrine of hell as so basic that he did not need to provide extensive evidence for it (p. 95).” Moo addresses passages like I Cor. 15:20-28,Rom. 5:18, Col. 1:20 and 2 Thess. 1:8-9. Moo’s conclusion on Paul’s doctrine of hell is that he “presents the judgment that comes on the wicked as the necessary response of a holy and entirely just God. For Paul, the doctrine of hell is a necessary corollary of the divine nature (p. 109).
  
  In chapter six Christopher Morgan looks at the doctrine of hell from a biblical theology stand point in the New Testament. He looks at three picture of hell in Scripture:
  
  Punishment is frequently portrayed as retribution, judgment, suffering, and torment by fire.
  Destruction is often described as perishing, death, or the second death.
  Banishment is commonly pictured as separation from the kingdom of God, exclusion from the presence of God, or being cut off from something living (p. 136)
  Morgan bear out these three pictures in a number of ways. First, he walks briefly through every book and writer in the NT and touches on their passages on hell. Then he fleshes out the three pictures of hell from the NT. Finally, he concludes by interpreting these three central pictures of hell. Morgan states that these pictures characterize hell as eternal (p. 148). They also “interweave with biblical portraits of God” as Judge, warrior and King (p. 149-50). Also, the three pictures of hell “flow naturally from biblical portraits of sin,” they “also appear to illustrate the biblical doctrine of the atonement,” they “stand in contrast with biblical portraits of salvation,” and they also “stand in contrast with biblical portraits of the kingdom of heaven (p. 150).”
  
  In chapters eight and nine J.I. Packer and Christopher Morgan address the positions of universalism and annihilationism respectively. Packer point out that “most universalists concede that universalism is not clearly taught in the Bible (p. 171).” However, “it is argued that the biblical revelation of God’s love to his world entails a universal salvific intention, that is, a purpose of saving everybody, and that sooner or later God must achieve that purpose (p. 171).” For annihilationism, or as it is preferred to be called, conditionalism, Morgan defines it as “the belief that God has created all human beings only potentially immortal. Upon being united to Christ, believers partake in the divine nature and receive immortality. Unbelievers never receive this capacity to live forever and ultimately cease to exist (p. 196).” Perhaps the best argument against this view is found in Revelation 20:15 which reads, “If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire (p. 218).”
  
  In the final chapter of the book Sinclair Ferguson offers some concluding pastoral remarks. Ferguson admits honestly that the very thought of an eternal hell of suffering for people is “emotionally intolerable (p. 220).” However, we must grapple with the reality that “hell exists; this is the testimony of the Scriptures, of the apostles, and of the Lord Jesus himself (p. 220).” Ferguson calls preachers of the Word to preach at least four things about hell from Scripture:
  
  Hell is real.
  Hell is vividly described in the pages of the New Testament.
  Hell, though prepared for the devil and his angels, is shared by real human beings.
  Most important, in expounding and teaching the biblical teaching on hell, we must emphasize that there is a way of salvation (p. 226-28).
  His final words provide the preacher of the Word with great encouragement as we preach the biblical doctrine of hell:
  
  Hell is at the end of the day the darkness outside; dense like a black hole, it is the place of cosmic waste. Who can contemplate this for long? Who, indeed, is sufficient for these things? The question is surely rhetorical. None of us is sufficient. But our sufficiency is to be found in Christ, the Savior, the Perfect Man, the Redeemer, the Judge. We must constantly remind ourselves that it is the Savior who spoke clearly of the dark side of eternity. To be faithful to him, so must we (p. 237).
  
  Hell Under Fire is a much needed corrective to much of the teaching within evangelicalism today on the doctrine of hell. This book needs to be read by every pastor and student of the Word. Read this book with Bible in hand and allow the Word of God to shape your heart and mind on the doctrine of hell.
  
• 
  Simon Wartanian

  Had this book sitting on my shelf for a while and thought that it would merely be an academic book and a dry read. I couldn't be more wrong. Surely it was academic, but never on a level that made it impossible for an average Bible student to understand.
  
  The Book and Its Content
  
  The authors are top-notch theologians in our day who in this book respond to Annihilationism and Universalism, while at the same time give a biblical and holistic picture of hell. The subject of hell is sobering and terrifying. As believers we know that thanks to Christ we have been saved from this awful fate, which we should recognize--we rightly deserve. We likewise believe that all those without the Gospel of Christ, do not have a hope, are under the wrath of God and will everlastingly be under the wrath of God. It is terrifying to think of that and we cannot, without sympathy, discard the emotional appeal of Universalists and Annihilationists. The Bible is the sole infallible and highest authority for the Christian and if the Bible teaches that historical view of hell, then my emotions do not matter and cannot settle the truth about hell. It is as simple as that.
  
  This book contains 10 chapters dealing, containing among other things,
  
  a historical survey about hell up to our day (chapter 1, by Albert Mohler Jr.);
  the OT and hell (chapter 2, by Daniel I. Block);
  the Lord Jesus and Hell (chapter 3, by Robert W. Yarbough);
  Paul and Hell (chapter 4, by Douglas J. Moo);
  the Apocalypse and Hell (chapter 5, by G. K. Beale);
  Biblical and Systematic Theology as it relates to hell (chapters 7-8, by Christopher W. Morgan and Robert A. Peterson, respectively);
  an examination of Universalism and its arguments (chapter 8, by J. I. Packer);
  an examination of Annihilationism and its arguments (chapter 9, by Christopher W. Morgan); and finally
  Hell and pastoral theology (chapter 10, by Sinclair Ferguson).
  There is a ton to be learned in these chapters by the Bible student. What is to be learned from this book should not only fill our heads with information, but motivate us to share the Gospel with the lost because of the dreadful fate which faces them if they receive not Christ and His righteousness.
  
  The reason we believe in the existence and everlasting nature of hell and of its punishment is simply because we believe that Holy Writ teaches it. If it were not for the words of the Lord Jesus Christ Himself, who spoke more often about hell than Heaven, we would not believe in Hell, because it is so repugnant to our fallen natures.
  
  Interaction
  
  This work continually interacts with popular scholarship as it regards the nature of hell and the arguments for and against Annihilationism in Evangelicalism. Authors most cited and interacted with include John Stott, Clark Pinnock, David Powys and Edward W. Fudge. The authors of this work continually argue that Annihilationists do not look at the whole portrayal of hell as presented by Scripture, but rather choose to focus on and emphasize specific portrayals of hell with neglect to the rest. This accusation is also leveled against those who hold to the traditional view of Hell who emphasize the punishment aspect of hell, while neglecting to share the Gospel, or declaring that hell is also a banishment (not merely a separation of absence of God's present) and destruction.
  
  The Destruction Picture of Hell
  
  An important and helpful study was Douglas J. Moo's on the meaning of destruction. He accuses Annihilationists of reading their preconceived meaning of destruction as cessation of existence or as "annihilation" rather than deriving its meaning from the whole of Scripture. He shows how it is better and more consistent with the total picture of hell in the Bible to understand the usage of words like destruction to mean "ruin" (p. 106) and "they [the two Greek word groups olethros and apolymi/apoleia] usually refer to the situation of a person or object that has lost the essence of its nature or function" (p. 105), rather than cessation of being. In order to establish this he cites examples where the word group of destruction is used without implying cessation of existence. For example:
  
  land that has lost its fruitfulness (olethros in Ezek. 6:14; 14:16); to ointment that is poured out wastefully and to no apparent purpose (apoleia in matt. 26:8; Mark 14:4); to wineskins that can no longer function because they have holes in them (appollymi in Matt. 9:17; Mark 2:22; Luke 5:37); to coin that is useless because it is “lost” (apollymi in Luke 15:9); or to the entire world that “perishes,” as an inhabited world, in the Flood (2 Pet. 3:6). In none of these cases do the objects cease to exist; they cease to be useful or to exist in their original, intended state. In other words, these key terms appear to be used in general much like we use the world “destroy” in the sentence, “The tornado destroyed the house.” The component parts of that house did not cease to exist, but the entity “house,” a structure that provides shelter for human beings, ceased to exist. (p. 105)
  While the rhetoric of Annihilationism is strong when using their preconceived ideas of destruction, they fail when examined in light of Scripture and when Scripture is compared to Scripture.
  
  The Apocalypse and Hell
  
  Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10-15 are arguably some of the clearest passages on the eternality of hell and of its punishment. G.K. Beale, who is recognized as the author of one of the best commentaries on Revelation, deals in detail with these passages while interacting fairly and respectfully with the other side.
  
  He shows how the eternality of hell is parallel with the eternality of heaven. Notice how in Revelation 14:11 the torments of the lost who are said to “have no rest, day or night” are side by side with the bliss of the saints who are said to have “rest from their labors” in Revelation 14:13. Notice also the close parallel between Revelation 14:11 and 20:10. Dr. Beale lays a great stress on this and rightfully so. The worshipers of the beast, the reprobate, will meet the same fate as their lord, the unholy trinity: Satan, the beast and false prophet. Dr. Beale writes, ‘the temporal expression “day and night” (hemeras kai nyktos) clearly refers to ceaseless activity that endures for eternity in 20:10, but the identical sense is strongly implied in 7:15 and 4:8. In 7:15 the clause alludes to the worship of the whole congregation of saints in God's temple in the new creation at the end of the age...Such worship and relief will continue forever” (p. 118).
  
  The parallel between the fate of the wicked and the righteous is also present in the fact that while the righteous “will reign forever and ever” (Rev 22:5), on the other hand, “the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever” (Rev 14:11). Notice that Scripture says that the smoke of their torment, not destruction goes up forever and ever. The expression “forever and ever” is identical for both the righteous as well as the wicked. Torment or punishment by definition implies consciousness. We do not torment or punish a car or a rock; but we do punish criminals. Therefore, “It still remains true that Revelation 14:11 and 20:10-15 are the Achilles’ heel of the annihilationist perspective” (p. 134).
  
  Much more could be said about this chapter, but my advice is to simply pick up the book and read this chapter. It is mind-opening and very helpful.
  
  Summary
  
  I loved the respectful tone of the authors and their respectful and fair interaction with the other side. I enjoyed their fair and honest handling of the Scriptures. I loved the fact that the authors frequently referred back to earlier portions of the book, which tells me that the editor did a great job at putting the book together. Sometimes they even cite earlier portions. Much could be learned from this book, from both its theological as well as pastoral tone, and I will no doubt return and look up the arguments and the texts again. Lord willing, I will try to update my commentary on chapter 32 of the 1689 sometime in the future with the insights I've gained from this work.
  
  My final advice is: tolle lege!
  
  See here too
  http://www.thecalvinist.net/post/A-Re...
• 
  Mike Felker

  As far as I know, this book represents the most thorough and scholarly attempts at defending Hell as eternal conscious torment. I can't fault the book for being so wide in it's scope, for it went after everything from liberal theology, universalism, and of course conditionalism. The latter was of most interest to me. Overall, I thought the case for ECT to be rather weak, especially on the chapters dealing with the gospels and Paul on Hell. Beale was the only one who made the strongest case for his position, which was on Revelation.
  
  This just wouldn't be the best book for the convinced conditionalist to read, because the scope is just too wide in responding to liberal theologians and universalists. But it may be worth just reading the chapters directly responding to conditionalism.
  
  I will also note that Edward Fudge has a newer edition of his book which responds to much of the arguments laid out here. It would be worthwhile for Morgan to also update his volume. To be honest, I would have given this book less stars if it wasn't for the other chapters dealing with liberal theology, universalism, preaching on hell, etc...Much of which any conservative theologian (whether ETC or CI) would agree with.
• 
  Zachary Lawson

  As a compilation of multiple essays, it's hard to assess this book as a whole. There are some good essays (Beale's and Block's stand out) and there are some rotten eggs in the carton (won't say which). Overall, I am came away with a [shrug] feeling about it. For example, I went through and tabulated every instance and interpretation of Isaiah 66:24; the authors all contradicted each other. Some flatly asserted that it teaches Eternal Torment. But, in Block's essay that is actually on the Old Testament view of hell, he hedges saying that "While Isaiah himself may not have had in mind hell as we later learn about it, it was a small and natural step for Jesus and later New Testament writers to utilize Isaiah's image for their own purposes." Woof! Yarbrough has to summon Judith 16:17 to make his case Jesus's quote of Isaiah 66:24 was ECT. What a howler! First, he gets the citation wrong, citing Judith 7:17 instead. Second, in an evangelical Protestant published book, he has to appeal to the Apocryphra authoritatively to make his case. Ouch!
• 
  Gary Scott

  I have interacted for years with Conditional Immortality and Annihilationism and have questioned the wisdom of spending much time reading the arguments of those who espouse this in light of so many clear statements of Scripture to the contrary. This book was very helpful in listening to the responses of those who have read and weighed the arguments of the Conditionalist/Annihilationists and provided solid Biblical, Exegetical, Aplogetic answers the make it unlikely that I will read at length the books that make an argument for revising the orthodox teaching of Christianity on Eternal Punishment. I especially appreciated Beal's chapter on Revelation and Morgan's chapter on Annihilationism. I would highly recommend this book to those who are conversant with this debate.
• 
  Daniel

  This appears to be some of the best conservative theology on the existence of eternal conscious torment in hell. However, as a conditionalist, I found these arguments poorly wrought and unconvincing. You can hear myself and others review it chapter by chapter at the URL below.
  
  
  http://rethinkinghell.com/2017/08/21/...
• 
  Zach Scheller

  Probably the best defense of hell I’ve seen. With essays from a variety of contributors on a variety of topics, this book feels like the scholarly version of Chan’s ERASING HELL. (No offense to Chan.) I imagine I’ll turn back to this book fairy frequently.
• 
  Robert Murphy

  Overall, a good book. There is incredible variety of writing styles and qualities amongst the authors. The bewildering array of aims, focuses, and methods hampers an otherwise fine book. For my research, Block's essay on lexical items relating to death and the afterlife in the OT and ANE literature is worth the price of the book. This book is good for research, but not evangelical or apologetic per se.
• 
  Mark A Powell

  With an assembly of evangelical thinkers contributing, editors Morgan and Peterson have compiled a powerful examination of the biblical doctrine of hell. Not only is the teaching affirmed from the Bible, but the false ideas of annihilationism and universalism are soundly rebuffed. While thorough scholarship is clearly used, the book seldom becomes tedious, suffering mainly from too much repetition. The defense of hell may not be an enjoyable task, yet it is handled quite well here.
• 
  Dustin Bagby

  A strong critique of universalism, conditional immortality, and annihilationism and a good attempt to explain the biblical teaching of hell.
  
  It was especially helpful to read after reading The Evangelical Universalist and Love Wins. Good food for thought.
• 
  Mike Jorgensen

  Not a book I would have read by choice, but it was assigned to me for class. I haven't been to wrapped up in all of the recent hell debates. Most of the articles are clear, biblical, thoughtful, and as charitable as they can be given the context of the debate.
• 
  Thomas Berber

  A must read for every Christian. Nothing will give us a such a sobering reality check and simultaneously enflame our gratitude towards the triune God for our ill-deserved salvation as being awoken to the reality of this doctrine.
• 
  Pastor Matt

  A thorough yet readable defense of the orthodox view of hell. The articles by J.I. Packer and Christopher Morgan are especially recommended.
• 
  Aaron Downs

  This book gets a little thick at points, but the last chapter alone by Sinclair Ferguson makes the book worth reading.
• 
  M

  A survey of predominating theological prognostications on hell based upon each theologian's literary analysis of the Bible.