When It Comes to Hell, We Can’t Afford to be Wrong

A response to Erasing Hell by Francis Chan & Preston Sprinkle

When sharing my annihilationist view with more traditional Christians, their responses generally fall into three broad categories:

1. Hopeful yet cautious enthusiasm (this is wonderful, if true - I need to study it further)
2. Complacency (interesting but not what I believe, nor is it a critical theological issue)
3. Rejection (no way, hell is eternal conscious punishment as I’ve always been taught)

Having been in the first camp myself, always found the other two reactions puzzling. After all, whether or not we ultimately determine annihilation to be true shouldn’t we all prefer it to the traditional view? And if so, isn’t it worthy of further study?  While Francis Chan doesn’t fit neatly into any of the above buckets, his book Erasing Hell provides valuable perspective into the views of the latter two groups.

While Pastor Chan does acknowledge the possibility of annihilation, the book is primarily a defense of eternal conscious punishment, which is the focus of this essay.  Although Chan’s main concern is with universalism (and on this subject we’re in broad agreement), I’m writing this entry strictly from an annihilationist viewpoint.

From a philosophical perspective, Erasing Hell raises the following questions / issues:

Is it Safer to Err on the Side of Communicating a More Extreme Punishment?

While Pastor Chan stresses the need to understand hell correctly, the consequences he sees for getting it wrong are markedly out of balance. He writes, “If I say there is no hell, and it turns out that there is a hell, I may lead people into the very place I convinced them did not exist! If I say there is a hell, and I’m wrong, I may persuade people to spend their lives frantically warning loved ones about a terrifying place that isn’t real.” Pastor Chan’s view of the consequences of communicating a false view of hell appears to be: leading people to hell vs. wasted effort warning people about a hell that doesn’t exist. Clearly the cost of lost souls far outweighs the inconvenience of unnecessary labor. If this perspective is representative of well meaning Christians in groups 2 and 3 above, it’s no wonder they reject the notion of annihilation – it’s not worth the risk of losing people forever. However the consequences Pastor Chan presents are incorrect. Preaching eternal conscious punishment of the unsaved is itself leading people away from God as they either struggle to make logical sense of a concept that is beyond human comprehension or they perceive God’s character in an inaccurate and extremely unappealing light. Either reaction can lead people toward disbelief or more “palatable” views that are extreme in the other direction, such as universalism. We are increasingly seeing this phenomenon today with the enormous popularity of people such as Rob Bell.

Bottom line: the consequences of false doctrine in either direction are the same: lost souls vs. lost souls. Indeed, we can’t get this wrong.

God’s Ways are Infinitely Higher than Our Ways so We Must Not Hold Him to Human Standards

While Chan sees the temptation to minimize the punishment of hell as resulting from human views of justice, in actuality both the doctrines of annihilationism and eternal conscious punishment appeal to human values – albeit very different ones. When considering murderers, pedophiles and others who violently victimize people, who among us doesn’t feel that annihilation is too good for them? Is our sense of human justice satisfied if after judgment Hitler is allowed to merely die? Mine certainly isn’t. While we debate God’s divine justice are we in fact equally ill equipped to understand His divine mercy?

Please know that in no way do I believe there are Christians who thoughtfully applaud the traditional doctrine in all its gory detail but rather that they view annihilation as insufficient punishment (in some cases) and may be giving inadequate thought to the severity of eternal conscious punishment. For more on this subject, see the next point.

Does the Traditional Doctrine of Hell Make Christians Less Compassionate?

Pastor Chan writes about some Christians “who revel in the idea of wrath and punishment.” Reflecting on this observation makes me wonder if subscribing to and defending a view of eternal conscious punishment can actually make us less compassionate toward unbelievers. In our struggle to balance this view with that of a loving and compassionate God, might we unconsciously justify this by distancing ourselves from non-believers and viewing them more negatively – after all they’ve earned this horrific fate, right? Pastor Chan himself provides a case in point. While in some passages he writes of his own struggle to understand the extreme nature of this punishment, in others his words reveal a bias toward minimizing this fate. He writes, “Okay, maybe He should punish extremely wicked people-that makes some sense. But punishment in hell for seemingly good people, or those who simply chose the wrong religion? That feels a bit harsh, at least according to my sense of justice.” A bit harsh? When used to describe never ending conscious torment this is the understatement of all time – even when referring to criminals let alone the relatively well behaved among us. In our rush to defend the indefensible (at least from a human perspective) we may well lose our own balance.

From a scriptural perspective, Pastor Chan addresses verses frequently cited by traditionalists but draws some conclusions with little to no Biblical support.

The Punishment of Those Accepting the Mark of the Beast

Pastor Chan quotes Revelation 14:9-11 as “a depiction of hell”:

“If anyone worships the beast and its image and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, he will also drink the wine of God’s wrath, poured full strength into the cup of his anger, and he will be tormented with fire and sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence … of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever, and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark in his name.”

While Chan acknowledges in his footnotes that the identity of the beast’s followers is widely disputed, he definitively states “the author here is speaking quite simply of unbelievers.”

These verses cannot be referring to eternal conscious punishment for one simple reason: the specific group referenced is said to be tormented in the presence of the Lamb. Scripture tells us clearly that the unsaved will be separated from Jesus. Jesus Himself commands the unsaved to “depart from Me…” (Matt 7:23) and Paul writes “They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord…” (2 Thes. 1:9) They cannot depart yet remain, cannot be in His presence yet shut out of His presence. Cannot – therefore these verses do not support the traditional doctrine.

A secondary point is found in Pastor Chan’s rather creative way of editing this text (immediately after quoting it directly) as “tormented with fire and sulfur … forever and ever”. A quick look back at the text shows that the descriptors “forever and ever” actually refer to the “smoke of their torment” not its duration.

The Fate of Unsaved People Cast into the Lake of Fire

Chan refers to Revelation 20 which states that the devil, the beast and the false prophet will be thrown into the lake of burning fire where they will be tormented forever and ever (v. 10), he also quotes Jesus as stating to the unsaved (goats) “Depart from me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). Chan concludes “So Jesus actually says that unbelievers share the same fate as the Devil and his demons.” This is not what Jesus actually says.  Jesus says that the unsaved are going to the same place but He does not say they share the same fate. Revelation 21:8 tells us that when unsaved people enter the lake of fire it will be the “second death.” Death is a very different fate than that described for the other three beings.

The Meaning of the Phrase “Second Death” and the Adjective “Everlasting”

When addressing the phrase “second death” (Rev. 21:8) Chan proposes the notion of the word “death” being used in a metaphorical sense as it is in other scriptures which refer to unbelievers as “dead” even though they’re physically alive. This is a stretch. Although scripture occasionally uses this term non-literally, it far more often uses it literally, most significantly in the preceding chapter where John uses the same phrase when referring to the second death of Death and Hades. Unless Chan is proposing that Death and Hades continue to exist in God’s new perfect world, second death means what it says.

Chan also spends a lot of time referring to the adjective “everlasting” as suggesting that conscious punishment is never ending, when in fact more straightforward synonyms would be “permanent” or “irreversible” – which are apt descriptions of death and destruction. This view is underscored further by the verses contrasting “life” with “punishment” beginning with John 3:16. If both the saved and unsaved receive eternal life but in different locations, why the contrast?

Bottom line: words like “perish”, “destruction” and “death” mean exactly what they say – and yes, they are indeed everlasting.

Points of Agreement

As I stated earlier, Pastor Chan’s main debate is with universalism and I agree with the majority of his points in this area. While Chan does debate annihilationism, he also acknowledges that it may be true and correctly identifies the most critical issue as the deadline for making a decision, not the duration of punishment. That said, it’s important not to minimize the negative effects of misleading others regarding the very character of our God by misunderstanding the nature of His punishment as well as His mercy. As Pastor Chan says: “When it comes to hell, we can’t afford to be wrong.”

A Final Thought…

Recently spoke with a very youthful yet discerning, budding annihilationist who posed a simple question, “Why did Jesus have to die?” My automatic response, “to pay the penalty for our sin”, to which my insightful friend replied, “Then the penalty for our sin must be death, right? Afterall, even though Jesus suffered a horrible death, He’s not being tormented for all eternity, so if eternal torment is our penalty, it hasn’t been paid.”

“Out of the mouths of babes…” (Matt. 21:16)

Thanks for reading


For a more comprehensive defense of annihilationism please see my post http://emetstone.blogspot.com/2011/12/death-life-biblically-based-exploration.html