Sermons

Summary: This sermon is based on a study of several books by authors who hold to a variety of views on the doctrine of Hell. Please note that the format of this website does not enable me to include footnotes where they were originally placed in the sermon. Howe

  Study Tools

In contemporary Christianity, many questions have arisen as to the reality of hell. While the Bible teaches a literal view of an eternal hell, there has been a widespread embrace of anything but a literal view. There has been much speculation about what the Bible actually teaches about nature and duration of hell. Rather than accepting the Scriptures literally, many deny a literal interpretation for some alternative approach. This issue is rooted in the denial of inspired Scripture, reinventing what God actually said in His Word, and a denial of absolute truth. From complete denial of Hell by liberal critics and “evangelical” scholars, many are not teaching a literal, biblical view.

In regard to literalism or some other view of hell people may ask the question, “What difference does it make?” In the introduction of Two Views of Hell we find some discussion on what is at stake. Robert Peterson believes that to alter the literal view of hell is to demonstrate a deficient picture of God and His glory, to repudiate the explicit teaching of the Bible, and to do “great harm to the task of world evangelism.” The differing views of hell that will be developed in this paper are Annihilation/Conditional, Metaphorical, and literalism.

In today’s evangelicalism, there exists a more recent view of hell that teaches Annihilationism. Annihilation is very similar to Conditional Immortality. The distinctions are easy to see. Many who are Annihilationists also hold a Conditionalist view. This is easy to understand. The main difference between the two terms is the time when one is made immortal. Is it at conception or is at the point of conversion? In fact, these two concepts are often thought of as the same. Those who hold this unbiblical view are most likely intending to “vindicate the character of God by their position.” Annihilationists appear to be trying to do God a favor. They strive to emphasize certain aspects of God’s person, while suppressing other vital truth. They emphasize that the suffering of unbelievers will come to an end because of God’s glory, love, mercy, and justice. “Personal emotions and desires combine with speculative reasonings about general ideas, and they take precedence over specific Biblical texts and teachings. You can see the process at work leading people to abandon other Biblical teachings that from time to time don’t fit the spirit of the age--and seem unacceptable to enlightened modern people.” Annihilation’s main thrust is that hell is temporary, not eternal. “Annihilationists believe that at the resurrection unbelievers will be judged and then put out of existence forever.” Millard Erickson identifies Annhiliationism as “the belief that at least some humans will permanently cease to exist at death or some point thereafter.” Mark Minnick writes “Annihilation… views the soul as inherently immortal but teaches that a person may forfeit that immortality by rejecting Jesus Christ.” “But the main problem with the view that unbelievers simply go out of existence is that the Bible teaches that those who do not trust in Christ will be punished with eternal suffering. In other words, annihilation leads the church away from Biblical truth. And that always hurts people and dishonors God.”


Browse All Media

Related Media


Talk about it...

Nobody has commented yet. Be the first!

Join the discussion