Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment [Paperback]

Robert A. Peterson (Author)

Product Details

• Paperback: 258 pages
• Publisher: P & R Publishing (July 3, 1995)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0875523722
• ISBN-13: 978-0875523729
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.2 x 0.9 inches
• Shipping Weight: 11.2 ounces (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 3.9 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (12 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #327,181 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

More About the Author

Robert A. Peterson (PhD, Drew University) is professor of systematic theology at Covenant Theological Seminary in St. Louis, Missouri. He is the author and editor of numerous books and articles, including The Glory of God and The Deity of Christ.

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

40 of 49 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Trial Verdict: It's a hung jury, December 17, 2007

By 

Christian - See all my reviews

This review is from: Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Paperback)

My purpose for reading this book was to get a firm explaination from a believer in eternal torment not only what is the biblical proof for the nature of Hell being eternal torment, but also to explain the many verses in the bible which also describe the nature of Hell being final ("destruction", "perish", etc). This book did not satisfy either objective.

It is so easy to proof-text this topic--to presuppose so many things about what Hell is and then read those things into the scriptures. Case and point from the author (p 178): "...I do not believe the traditional view of hell because I accept the immortality of human beings. I believe in the immortality of human beings because the Bible clearly teaches everlasting damnation for the wicked and everlasting life for the righteous." This view, I believe, is the crux of the problem for "proving" eternal torment. Shouldn't a conclusion like the one this author makes drive us to ask additional questions such as, "does the Bible discuss whether human beings have immortality"? To accept that by way of a mention of eternal torment this means humans have immortality is a leap of logic and is not exegesis of the scripture.

I believe the lie Satan told Eve, "You shall not surely die" is one which is still alive and well to this day. Even the author's discussion on SHEOL has no conclusion on the subject--he says it may mean the grave, or it may mean a holding place of departed human spirits. Understanding SHEOL is a key component to this discussion, and I wish he had been more thorough in his discussion. His conclusion was not based on any biblical exegesis.

On the book itself, the author has some very good bible-based sections on Judgement in the Old Testament, and this is true--There is Judgement by a Holy God--but the author then makes a leap to the conclusion of eternal torment. He relies extensively on quoting other people as proof for his position. While this may be acceptable in scholarly work, the Bible needs to interpret the Bible, and we shouldn't draw conclusions on what others have concluded. Regarding his comments against Annihilationism, he again does not use the Bible to disprove those arguments but rather uses his own conclusions (which he came to in previous chapters) to disprove them.

I will continue to look for resources which use Biblical exegesis to answer my questions, however, praise God that Salvation is not dependant on a complete understanding of the nature of Hell. Our Salvation comes from believing in Jesus Christ!

36 of 47 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A Divine Revelation of Hell, June 8, 2000

By 

Jerry Dodson - See all my reviews

This review is from: Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Paperback)

Those of you who waded through Mary Baxter's "A Divine Revelation of Hell" realize that her cartoon version of hell is nothing like what the Bible teaches. Robert Peterson limits his teaching about hell to what he can find in the Bible, thus making his book a true divine revelation of hell. While all about us, those who claim the name of Christ are either denying its existence (universalism), or its eternality (annihilationism), Mr. Peterson sticks to his guns and gives a careful, exegetical defense of hell. Not since W. G. T. Shedd's "Doctrine of Endless Punishment" have I seen such a valuable addition to the literature on this subject. Besides his careful exegesis of the relevant Scriptures, Peterson also interacts with and refutes the writings of men such as Edward Fudge, John Stott, and Clark Pinnock. If you can only afford one book on hell, this is the one to buy. You will find it indispensable.

14 of 17 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Emotionally Charged and Scripturally Weak, January 21, 2010

By 

Djcool955555 - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment (Paperback)

For the purpose of full disclosure, I am an annihiltionist, one of the people Peterson says need to "repent and submit to God's glory by submitting their minds to the truth" (pg. 89). I obviously disagree Peterson's ultimate conclusions, and seldom give good reviews to books that try to prove the bible really does teach eternal torment (since I obviously think they fail). However, this is among the worst I have come across.

For starters, like my title indicates, it is packed with emotional appeals and personal attacks, the kind of things my side is usually accused of. Hardly a single chapter goes by without a mini-sermon on the importance of adhering to the traditional doctrine out of compassion for the lost. He brands universalism as "evil" and literally says it is a sin to hold that belief (pg. 156). While I don't agree with universalists, not all universalists believe the doctrine because they refuse to submit to God - some actually do base it on exegesis (although I ultimately think they fail, as does Peterson). He argues against annihilationism because it will lead unbelievers to underestimate their fate, that they won't repent if they don't think they will be tortured forever. Call me crazy, but if they aren't going to repent when told of Jesus and the prospect of eternal life, then I might dare say they don't believe in Jesus! The cross is foolishness to those who perish (1 Cor. 1:18). Not everyone believes, and I hardly would think a lot of people believe but willfully choose against God because they believe in annihilation instead of eternal torment. We don't scare people into heaven - someone who, not knowing any better, "converts" out of fear and not genuine faith is going to the same Hell either way (whatever its nature).

Along those lines, in the conclusion of the book, he looks at two hypothetical pastors. The one who does not preach about Hell is not only seen as a bad pastor (which I could understand - if eternal torment were true), but Peterson actually implies that he is damned, reasoning that failing to preach to his parishioners about Hell is "lullabying them to Hell" and is tantamount to leading in children to sin (cf Matt. 18:5-6). I kid you not (pg. 236-237).

And though not an important point, he several times appeals directly to unbelievers. What unbeliever would read this book in the first place?

EXEGESIS:
Peterson does address the scriptures at times, but not successfully. Many of his points revolve around Revelation 20:10. How do we know that "eternal fire" of Matthew 25:41 refers to eternal torment? Because the Devil is eternally tormented in Revelation 20;10. How do we know that God being "all-in-all" and putting "all things in heaven and on earth under one head, even Christ" (1 Cor. 15:28 and Eph. 1:10, NIV) doesn't indicate eradication of evil? Because the end of Revelation teaches eternal torment.

He makes unwarranted assumptions. Any claim of separation requires eternal existence. Why? I don't know. He just says it presupposes it. Obviously one needs to be alive at the moment of separation, but what if separation is the cause of the eternal extinction? That isn't even touched upon.

Many solid annihilationist arguments are completely ignored or misunderstood. Regarding Revelation 20:10, he barely addresses any of them, for as he admits 12 years later, he didn't understand them (in "Fallacies in the Annihilationism Debate? A Response to Glenn Peoples" in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological society, 2007, free online).

He argues that "proper theological methodology involves allowing New Testament writers to move beyond their Old testament background in keeping with the progress of revelation" (pg 63). In other words, in verses where the Old Testament is either quoted or clearly alluded to, it is actually improper to take into account what the Old Testament said! This explains a lot when reading his take Mark 9:48, as well as Revelation 14:9-11 (where he makes no mention of the Old testament use of almost identical language in Isaiah 34:9-10).

He uses "weeping and gnashing of teeth" as proof of torment and pain, despite the fact that, despite the way that phrase is used today, it suggests sadness and anger, not pain. Look up the descriptions of gnashing of teeth in the Old Testament - they speak of anger, not pain. And weeping can mean all kinds of things.

He uses the NIV almost exclusively. Generally, I like the NIV - I probably use it more than any others. However, it is not the most literal version, and they do take some big interpretational liberties, especially when dealing with eternal punishment. Compare Jude 7, Mark 9:43, Luke 16:23, and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 in NIV with any more literal version (NASB, ESV, KJV, NKJV, RSV. NRSV, etc). Peterson's arguments on these passages rely on the unique, traditionalist-friendly interpretations (not literal Greek translations) of the NIV.

One chapter is devoted to the view of the church throughout history. Interestingly, he starts in the third century with Tertullian. Never mind that some of the earliest and most influential Christian leaders from the 1st and 2nd century (such as Ignatius of Antioch and Ireneus of Lyons) were explicitly conditionalists (which might give some background on the early church's view on the meaning of 'eternal fire" and "eternal punishment," which the conditionalist fathers speak of).

Regarding the language of destruction seen throughout the New Testament (i.e Matt 10:28), he basically argues to the effect of "well, the rest of the bible teaches eternal torment, so it must not be literal destruction." At least other such traditionalist writings have attempted to make a serious case regarding the actual texts in question, usually by pointing to the ambiguity of the Greek words involved. As is the case in much of the book, he relies on systematic theology and the idea that what the bible says on the whole interprets passages. A legitimate practice on its face, but he takes it too far.

In general, there are just simply lots of emotional arguments, the occasional non sequitur, and exegesis of prooftexts that offers nothing new. The study is shallow; seldom are any serious or strong arguments against traditionalism dealt with. It's easy to argue against universalism when you devote 2/3 of the chapter against the teaching of an individual theologian who essentially denies the deity of Christ and the authority of scripture...

If you believe in eternal torment and just want to feel good about yourself and get a pat on the back from a respected theologian, then buy this book. If you, whatever your view, are looking for a serious study of scripture, run.