Customer Reviews

Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment

5 star:		(7)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

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!

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.

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.

Hell is a subject that is hard to deal with. This is the kind of subject most people just don't want to read in the Bible. This is the kind of subject most people seem to run screaming from because they think it is "mean" and "hard" to speak about what is true, that Hell is true. Even churches have done their best to white out all messages of the Bible concerning Hell. On the one hand, you want to know that there is some sort of justice in the universe we live in. On the other hand, you fear the idea that there will be a place for those who go into eternity lacking something. Hell is the subject that many ministers, sadly, fear studying and exploring in case of "scaring off" members of the church or "being intolerant" by members of the church. But Hell is a very important subject because it is a very real place. To read the Bible and not realize that there is a place of sentencing and judgment for those who choose to turn their backs on the Truth, you are then failing in your readings. Hell on Trial by Robert A. Peterson is an important book that all church leaders, church members, and even seminary students need to read. The book explores the very real truth that the Bible shows that there are those who will go to Hell when they die...why? Because they fail to go into eternity without trust in Yahweh through Yeshua, I say this as we are living in the Church Age heading toward to the Last Days as found in both Testaments.

The point that so many people who do not believe in hell, much less not believe in the truth of Lucifer and demons and fallen angels, fail to truly comprehend what and who Yahweh is, especially what and who Yahweh is through the Son, Messiah Yeshua. On the one hand yes, GOD is love, on the other hand, GOD is also Holy. That means that GOD loves us so much that He has given us the Free Will to choose Him... remember we are a fallen race, fallen with our first father Adam and first mother Eve. He loves us so much that He makes us choose the choice: Are we going to follow the LORD? Or are we going to turn away from the LORD? If we turn toward the LORD, Yahweh, then we are accepting the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We are accepting life here and life eternal with the LORD. If we turn away from the LORD, Yahweh, then we are not accepting the Way, the Truth, and the Life. We are not accepting life here and life eternal with the LORD. On the one hand, we have Messiah Yeshua as our Savior, on the other hand, we fail what is true.

Remember Messiah Yeshua is the one who taught us most about Hell. Again and again He warns us that if we do not follow Him, if we do not take up our cross, if we do not place our trust in Him, then we face everlasting Hell...remember the story of Lazarus and the Rich Man...remember the story of the faithless servant...remember the story of the wise virgins and the foolish virgins. Again and again Messiah Yeshua, who is the very visible truth of Yahweh, for He is Yahweh, tells us that in our free will we either accept Heaven with the LORD or Hell without the LORD. Furthermore, remember what Messiah Yeshua shows to the Apostle John as we read the truth in the Book of Revelation. We see that there will be a judgment for those who come into eternity without the LORD, those who think they can go into eternity and be blessed based only on their good works and not the blood of Christ. The Great White Throne of Judgment shows that there will certainly be judgment for all those, great and small, rich and poor, "wise" and "foolish" will face the very judgment of Messiah Yeshua. And they will be condemned. Why? Because all religions do not lead to the same GOD. Because all the good works we do cannot save us. Because we are sinners, plain and simple, and GOD must judge those sins of ours (if we go into eternity without the blood of Christ) because if He doesn't, then He is not a GOD of good, then He is not a GOD of holiness.

Hell is not a pleasant subject. This book was a difficult read in terms of the subject alone, though Peterson lays it out in a beautifully written, logical way. I read this book some time ago, and I recently had reason to look at it again. I had remembered that it was excellent, though my memory didn't do it justice. Based on my experience with this book, and having had Peterson for a class, I would read any book that Peterson writes.

I found this book to be very useful and informative, well written and insightful. Strongly answers challenges to current debate in Christian circles to traditional view of Hell, showing why both Universalism and Conditionalism are not biblically compatible

I've read this book to understand the arguments for eternal punishment. I don't know how many times I let out a gasp of disbelief at what was written and what was concluded. For example, on page 133 Peterson writes:

"the doctrine of Christ's vicarious atonement, logically, stands or falls with that of endless punishment."

Peterson is quoting another author here to make his point (which he does a lot). Peterson doesn't come right out and say that eternal punishment is essential Christian doctrine, but he certainly implies it and I would suspect he holds this belief. Here's the truth: Christ's atonement stands alone in its sufficiency!

Another gasping moment came just in the preceding paragraph when Peterson quotes the same author:

"Punishment satisfies justice."

Well, good luck trying to satisfy the scales of justice when sin is on one side and conscious torment is on the other. Sin's weight is infinite and even the most severe torment administered for eternity cannot even come close to balancing that scale. Sin's debt can only be satisfied through the Blood of Christ or death. It is impossible to satisfy justice with eternal torment (and eternal attempts in that direction are futile). Again, Peterson doesn't expressly state this belief himself, but he says it through others and it indirectly communicates his views, in my opinion. Here's the truth: the blood of Eternal Torment cannot satisfy justice, but the blood of Christ can!

Matthew 10:28 (NIV)
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Peterson directly makes the argument that to "destroy both soul and body in hell" is really to "experience the ruin of their whole persons." He says that Matthew 10:28 is clear in its meaning and that "destruction" doesn't mean to be destroyed, but rather it means to be punished with forfeiture of all that is worthwhile in human existence. In the next paragraph he says that "destruction" really means to be thrown into hell. Peterson in a later chapter quotes another author who says "destroy" really means a "never-ending killing" (p. 99). Peterson wraps up his definition of "destruction" on page 194 where he states that it means "the eternal ruin of all that is worthwhile in human existence."

Matthew 10:28 is crystal clear in its meaning in that we are instructed not to fear man who can only kill the body, but we should fear God who can destroy us fully (soul and body). His attempts to explain Matthew 10:28 leads one to conclude that we should not fear man who can only ruin us temporarily, but to fear God who can ruin us eternally. Really? Gasp!

Peterson concludes that "destruction" has to mean "eternal ruin" because it is the only way it fits with the rest of Scripture. Gasp!

My shortness of breath continues on page 198 where Peterson defines "death" as the perpetual separation from God's eternal life. With this definition, irreconcilable differences are produced when immortality is a certainty for everyone and death is defined to really mean to live in a bad eternal state. Actually Peterson makes the case that no one is ever separated from God and that God is fully present in Heaven and in Hell, and that both existences are lived eternal...one joyous and one under wrath. But, I think it is safe to assume he means that death is a perpetual separation from God's eternal life in Heaven when he speaks of death. Death, then, becomes defined as eternal life in hell.

The case for eternal punishment hinges on this definition of death; how ironic, then, is it that the first recorded lie ever told by Satan requires death to be defined?

"You will not certainly die" (Genesis 3:4)

Before reading this book, everyone will have to choose their definition of death to either mean to cease to exist or to exist under God's wrath. Was Satan's lie that we certainly will not cease to exist? Was Satan's lie that we certainly will not live in hell. You decide. As you can see, we start off with a huge problem when death is interpreted as meaning two totally different things. Gasp!

This book was very enlightening and, for me, it had the opposite effect of the authors intent. Whatever your beliefs may be regarding hell, this is a good book to read. It will help to give a basis for the belief in eternal punishment, or help clarify the points of objection. There are some very serious holes in the the case for eternal punishment as outlined in this book. I had many gasping moments reading this book!

Nearly everyone who has died since the creation of the world is currently in hell. They face eternal punishment and torment without relief. This does not merely refer to evil people. It is all encompassing, save the sliver of people who have been truly born again. In today's world, if you were to meet a human chosen at random from the entire planet, he has a one-in-six chance of being Indian. He has another one-in-five chance of being Chinese. These are countries where the gospel barely has a foothold. Most Christians choose not to think about the fact that the majority of the planet dies without the echo of the gospel in their country- much less in their family or in their own ears.

The strength of Robert Peterson's Hell on Trial: The Case for Eternal Punishment is that it confronts the Christian with those facts. It seems that most of today's Christians refuse to acknowledge the reality of hell. They have trained themselves not to think about it and have thus divorced contemporary evangelicalism from one of its main fountains of missionary impetus. Those that do contemplate the Bible's teaching about hell seem to swerve into universalism of some sort. The common church member does not understand the terrible things that the Bible teaches about hell. Peterson confronts his readers with the truth of the Bible and he does so in a polemic but thorough and convincing way.

This book presents an argument for Peterson's view of hell. It is very well organized and overly fair to the opposing views. It is both convincing and careful not to overstate the point. He does not misrepresent those who disagree with him, which enables his confidence that the Bible really is on his side to be seen.

Patterson establishes the truth of his doctrine of hell in both the Scripture and in church history, and then shows the down-ward trends in contemporary thinking about hell. New views are emerging and old heresies are being resurrected. As post-modernism and relativism abound, they wage war on the truth about hell.

However, it is in these sections where the fairness and reliability of Peterson is seen. He treats his opponents with respect and accurately represents their views. With one view- annihilationism- Peterson said that no one person presented a strong and thorough case to defend it. So, Peterson combined the strongest arguments that had been put forth, added another one that he came up with, and thus crafted an extremely thorough defense of this false doctrine. In other words, he made their argument stronger than they were able to make it. And then he showed that even this improved argument still woefully falls short of what the Bible teaches about hell.

Peterson is so convincing because he shows exactly why his opponents believe what they believe. "Notice that he (Hick) rejects hell on moral grounds" (140). "Again, Hick buttresses his theological assertions with a moral argument" (141). Time and time again, Peterson shows his readers that arguments against the Bible's teaching of hell do not have their source in exegesis, but rather philosophy and moralism. He paints the landscape as containing basically two sides- those who use Scripture and those who use their own judgment.

However, Peterson does not stop there. He shows how terrible hell is, and makes the point that if it were up to us and our reason there may very well be no hell. Of course when others use their own sense of fairness to determine eschatology hell would be non-existent or "incompatible with love" (141). However, truth is not determined based on man's definition of either love or fairness, but on the word of God; which is precisely why Peterson's constant return to the Scripture showed his confidence that he was right.

A glaring weakness is his treatment of babies who die (235-36). Peterson claims that the Bible teaches that the children of redeemed parents go to heaven. He uses verses that show the children of Israelites going to heaven, and concludes that this doctrine is somehow limited to the families of those in the covenant family relationship. This aside, Peterson's book is a convincing treatment of the doctrine of hell. It serves as a wake-up call to those who have trained their minds not to think about such things. It clearly draws the battle-line between truth and error and shows his readers exactly what the Bible teaches about hell. He labors to show the terrible nature of hell, and to show that if a person rejects the Bible's teaching about hell they are doing so for intellectual and moral reasons, but certainly not for biblical ones. It is highly recommended because it is careful, clear, and concise.

There are few doctrines in Christianity that people despise more than two doctrines. One is the doctrine that salvation is through personal faith in Jesus Christ alone for salvation. Our postmodern world wants to embrace the idea that all can be saved apart from personal, saving faith in Jesus (John 5:24-25; 14:6; Acts 4:12; Romans 10:14-17). The second doctrine that is under attack is the doctrine of eternal punishment in hell for those who are not disciples of Jesus. Even evangelicals such as John Stott reject the doctrine of eternal torment in hell.

Yet this book by Robert Peterson defends the traditional view of hell. Peterson writes with grace toward those who disagree but he writes with clear and excellent exegesis of the major passages that deal with hell. He lays out a defense for hell and shows from the Bible that the doctrine was clearly taught by Jesus Himself.

Overall every disciple should read this book and search the Scriptures about the doctrine of hell. It is not a loved doctrine but it is biblical and we must embrace it. If we hold to the reformation principle that the Bible is the sole place for faith and practice and that the Scriptures are the final authority, then we must embrace the doctrine of hell.

The author gives various views of peoples' thinking on hell, 4 of which are wrong. His book is scriptural and very good. I would recommend this book for everyone, not just Christians.