Scan barcode
foosreadsandwrites's review against another edition
3.0
I wish I could rate Crockett's section alone - which is easily a five star piece. The three star rating is for the other authors, and not because of their doctrines, but because of their methods of interacting with one another. I would definitely say that a kind man is a man easier to agree with.
setgar's review
3.0
In this book, four contributors make brief cases for a particular view on hell, each of which is then responded to by the other three contributors. It’s a quick read, and works as a good introduction to each view that provides a jumping off point if one wants to read more about them.
Of course, in a book as short as this (just over 200 pages), 4 different views are only going to be given so much time to speak their mind. Each essay hovers around 25-30 pages, with each response covering about 5 pages. As I was hoping, this is the sort of book I could recommend to a layperson who was questioning their thoughts on hell, but it will inevitably lead to more questions (not a bad thing at all!).
I think the difficulty of such a book and such a topic is that the 4 contributors seem to be arguing for their positions from completely different grounds. Denny Burk, the essayist for the “Eternal Conscious Torment” view, makes his case almost exclusively from passages in Scripture (which I believe are poorly interpreted, but that’s beside the point). In each of his responses, he throws around the term “biblical” as a catch-all adjective to try to show why the alternatives are incorrect, but such a word has little meaning without the 4 contributors coming together and defining what “biblical” would even mean. John G. Stackhouse, the proponent of Terminal Punishment, makes his case primarily from citing biblical passages and etymology, while Jerry L. Walls, who supports a purgatorial view, cites almost exclusively church history and traditionally held beliefs. Perhaps it’s my own person bias, but only Robin A. Parry, the universalist essayist, even acknowledges that all four views can be supported through adequate proof-texting and all four views have considerable acceptance throughout church history, and he makes by far the strongest theological case for his view in light of the entire biblical story. But when there is no agreed upon basis for which the views are being judged, it feels, especially in the responses, as though the contributors are simply talking past each other.
I would consider this book a good introduction to the debate and discussion, but it is only a start—which may be a very good thing.
Of course, in a book as short as this (just over 200 pages), 4 different views are only going to be given so much time to speak their mind. Each essay hovers around 25-30 pages, with each response covering about 5 pages. As I was hoping, this is the sort of book I could recommend to a layperson who was questioning their thoughts on hell, but it will inevitably lead to more questions (not a bad thing at all!).
I think the difficulty of such a book and such a topic is that the 4 contributors seem to be arguing for their positions from completely different grounds. Denny Burk, the essayist for the “Eternal Conscious Torment” view, makes his case almost exclusively from passages in Scripture (which I believe are poorly interpreted, but that’s beside the point). In each of his responses, he throws around the term “biblical” as a catch-all adjective to try to show why the alternatives are incorrect, but such a word has little meaning without the 4 contributors coming together and defining what “biblical” would even mean. John G. Stackhouse, the proponent of Terminal Punishment, makes his case primarily from citing biblical passages and etymology, while Jerry L. Walls, who supports a purgatorial view, cites almost exclusively church history and traditionally held beliefs. Perhaps it’s my own person bias, but only Robin A. Parry, the universalist essayist, even acknowledges that all four views can be supported through adequate proof-texting and all four views have considerable acceptance throughout church history, and he makes by far the strongest theological case for his view in light of the entire biblical story. But when there is no agreed upon basis for which the views are being judged, it feels, especially in the responses, as though the contributors are simply talking past each other.
I would consider this book a good introduction to the debate and discussion, but it is only a start—which may be a very good thing.
storymi's review
3.0
I grew up in a church where ‘hell’ was not something that was talked about a lot. For me it felt like an awkward part of Christianity, whereof nobody exactly knew what to say about it. The traditional view on hell feels so far away from the loving God, whereof my church actually did love to talk about.
Despite this upbringing, hell was something that worried me when I was a kid and a young teenager. The devil and demons were something that did scare me for sure (even though they were also barely mentioned in church and sometimes they were mentioned as symbols instead of being real ‘things’, but they were mentioned more than hell). I as well remember being quite upset ( I was about seven years old) after a little girl told me in a playground that I was going to hell because I was wearing trousers instead of a skirt. I also once got a little graphic novel from a so called street evangelist (I must’ve been fourteen years old) that I threw it away immediately at home, but some of the pictures non the less found a way into my brain. I can still remember the scared faces of the people that were thrown into the flames. So yeah, hell worried me after that. couldn’t understand how a loving God could send people to a place of torment.
It was actually C.S. Lewis with his Narnia-books who helped me shift my thinking on this subject. Hell in his books (see also his [b:The Screwtape Letters|8130077|The Screwtape Letters|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1476379778l/8130077._SY75_.jpg|2920952], which is actually a book with humor about the nature of good and evil) is not so much about believing or not believing, but more the contradiction of heaven. Heaven is described of a place full of life, risks, reality, forgiving and transforming (which can be difficult sometimes), but also because of that full of beauty, empathy, real love, life and kindness, where as hell is a place of egoism, refusal of self reflection, jealousy, bitterness and idleness. Every person in life, in his own circumstances, makes choices and with every choice (particularly in difficult circumstances) you grow closer to either ‘hell’ or ‘heaven’. Especially in his last Narnia Book: [b:The Last Battle|84369|The Last Battle (Chronicles of Narnia, #7)|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1308814830l/84369._SY75_.jpg|1059917], C.S. Lewis shows that heaven and hell it is not as simple as a parting between believers and non-believers. Like a dutch singer and poet Rikkert said: whoever believes that the line between good and evil lies between Christian or non-Christian, still has a lot to learn.
This was the vision that stucked with me. Even though hell always remained something that I kept thinking about as a difficult part of Christianity, the last couple of years I didn’t think a lot about the subject. Until a teenager in my church (the same church that is awkward about talking about hell) asked me if it was true that everybody that doesn’t believe in God goes to hell. I was a bit shocked that he was viewing the world so black and white, but after that realized that not talking about it, does mean that kids form their own opinion about it based on (in this case) high school history books about the middle ages. Wasn’t I scared for exactly the same things as a young teenager?
I decided to dive deeper into the subject and after reading a lot of reviews on books about the afterlife from Goodreads member and theologian David, I decided to read ‘Four Views on Hell.’ In this book three theologians and one philosopher are all displaying their view on hell, based on what they read in the Bible and also in texts about the Bible from history and current times (C.S Lewis also comes up a lot in this book, especially in the last part from contributor Jerry L. Walls). After each part the other contributors tell what they think is wrong with the vision of the contributor and they also tell on which part they agree. It’s like an intellectual battle on the subject of hell. This already tells us one important fact, namely that there is not ONE view on hell, although a lot of people think that is the case. In the Bible there are quite a lot of texts about hell and afterlife, which often also contradict each other.
The first contributor is Denny Burk, who is defending the traditional Eternal Concious Torment view, the traditional view of hell which scared me as a kid (throughout the book he is called the ECT guy, which I found in a weird way kind of sarcastically funny). Reading this part I found out that my childhood and teenage fears were still somewhere rooted in my brain, because I couldn’t sleep the first night I read this part. However after reading further into the defence of Denny Burk my childhood fears mostly disappeared, because I soon found out that the ECT theory was for me the most unconvincing theory by far. Sure, there are texts in the Bible that seem to talk about Eternal Conscious Torment, but looking at this texts trough the telescope of the whole story of the Bible and the general patterns and storylines you find in it, it makes it seem quite improbable. And the harder Danny tried to convinces us that Eternal Conscious Torment is just and corresponding with a loving God, the lesser I believed him. Also the other authors in the book learnt me that the texts Burk is quoting can also be explained in different ways. So… reading this book gained me already one valuable point, I could finally leave this part of my childhood fear behind.
The other three authors Stackhouse (Terminal Punishment, which is to some extent resembling with the vision of Burke, but punishment doesn’t goes on forever), Parry (Universalism, everybody on the end will go to heaven, which also has some strong points, but left me wondering about free will. Although I hope that this vision is true, if there is something like heaven and hell after all) and Walls (with a new protestant vison on purgatory, whit a lot of C.S. Lewis, which I actually liked the most and which sounded most logical to me >> disadvantage: this part has the fewest literal bible text that plead for it, but could be very well true in context of the larger story of the bible when you think logically about it) all three had good points and weaker points.
The first conclusion of this book for me is that I still don’t know what to think about hell, although the visions of Parry and Walls had me wondering the most and I might read more about their theories in the future. Especially universalism made me curious for more, though I found myself agreeing/making notes most in Walls’ part of the book.
The second conclusion is that I like the concept of this book. It’s actually a series of the Zondervan publisher called ‘counterparts’ with a lot of difficult subjects, in which different people discuss different viewpoints with each other (with respect, love that!). Would be cool if this kind of books were also available on non-biblical subjects. I think it’s so enriching to learn about different visions in one book!
The third conclusion is: talk about taboos and dare to dive into the matter, dare to say that you don’t know the answers, that things are not always clear, about the difficult sides of subjects, about doubts. After reading this book and also another ([b:Four Views on Heaven|54287587|Four Views on Heaven|John S. Feinberg|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1619568484l/54287587._SY75_.jpg|84714240]), I had a really good open conversation with a group of teenagers (i work in that church now (: ) about afterlife (they actually did have a quite black and white view, which I tried to nuance and challenge) and especially about what it means to have a good life in the life we are living right now and how we can bring more of beauty, love, goodness and heaven on this earth. That is what all the talk about afterlife in the end should lead to and that was one point where all contributors agreed on.
Despite this upbringing, hell was something that worried me when I was a kid and a young teenager. The devil and demons were something that did scare me for sure (even though they were also barely mentioned in church and sometimes they were mentioned as symbols instead of being real ‘things’, but they were mentioned more than hell). I as well remember being quite upset ( I was about seven years old) after a little girl told me in a playground that I was going to hell because I was wearing trousers instead of a skirt. I also once got a little graphic novel from a so called street evangelist (I must’ve been fourteen years old) that I threw it away immediately at home, but some of the pictures non the less found a way into my brain. I can still remember the scared faces of the people that were thrown into the flames. So yeah, hell worried me after that. couldn’t understand how a loving God could send people to a place of torment.
It was actually C.S. Lewis with his Narnia-books who helped me shift my thinking on this subject. Hell in his books (see also his [b:The Screwtape Letters|8130077|The Screwtape Letters|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1476379778l/8130077._SY75_.jpg|2920952], which is actually a book with humor about the nature of good and evil) is not so much about believing or not believing, but more the contradiction of heaven. Heaven is described of a place full of life, risks, reality, forgiving and transforming (which can be difficult sometimes), but also because of that full of beauty, empathy, real love, life and kindness, where as hell is a place of egoism, refusal of self reflection, jealousy, bitterness and idleness. Every person in life, in his own circumstances, makes choices and with every choice (particularly in difficult circumstances) you grow closer to either ‘hell’ or ‘heaven’. Especially in his last Narnia Book: [b:The Last Battle|84369|The Last Battle (Chronicles of Narnia, #7)|C.S. Lewis|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1308814830l/84369._SY75_.jpg|1059917], C.S. Lewis shows that heaven and hell it is not as simple as a parting between believers and non-believers. Like a dutch singer and poet Rikkert said: whoever believes that the line between good and evil lies between Christian or non-Christian, still has a lot to learn.
This was the vision that stucked with me. Even though hell always remained something that I kept thinking about as a difficult part of Christianity, the last couple of years I didn’t think a lot about the subject. Until a teenager in my church (the same church that is awkward about talking about hell) asked me if it was true that everybody that doesn’t believe in God goes to hell. I was a bit shocked that he was viewing the world so black and white, but after that realized that not talking about it, does mean that kids form their own opinion about it based on (in this case) high school history books about the middle ages. Wasn’t I scared for exactly the same things as a young teenager?
I decided to dive deeper into the subject and after reading a lot of reviews on books about the afterlife from Goodreads member and theologian David, I decided to read ‘Four Views on Hell.’ In this book three theologians and one philosopher are all displaying their view on hell, based on what they read in the Bible and also in texts about the Bible from history and current times (C.S Lewis also comes up a lot in this book, especially in the last part from contributor Jerry L. Walls). After each part the other contributors tell what they think is wrong with the vision of the contributor and they also tell on which part they agree. It’s like an intellectual battle on the subject of hell. This already tells us one important fact, namely that there is not ONE view on hell, although a lot of people think that is the case. In the Bible there are quite a lot of texts about hell and afterlife, which often also contradict each other.
The first contributor is Denny Burk, who is defending the traditional Eternal Concious Torment view, the traditional view of hell which scared me as a kid (throughout the book he is called the ECT guy, which I found in a weird way kind of sarcastically funny). Reading this part I found out that my childhood and teenage fears were still somewhere rooted in my brain, because I couldn’t sleep the first night I read this part. However after reading further into the defence of Denny Burk my childhood fears mostly disappeared, because I soon found out that the ECT theory was for me the most unconvincing theory by far. Sure, there are texts in the Bible that seem to talk about Eternal Conscious Torment, but looking at this texts trough the telescope of the whole story of the Bible and the general patterns and storylines you find in it, it makes it seem quite improbable. And the harder Danny tried to convinces us that Eternal Conscious Torment is just and corresponding with a loving God, the lesser I believed him. Also the other authors in the book learnt me that the texts Burk is quoting can also be explained in different ways. So… reading this book gained me already one valuable point, I could finally leave this part of my childhood fear behind.
The other three authors Stackhouse (Terminal Punishment, which is to some extent resembling with the vision of Burke, but punishment doesn’t goes on forever), Parry (Universalism, everybody on the end will go to heaven, which also has some strong points, but left me wondering about free will. Although I hope that this vision is true, if there is something like heaven and hell after all) and Walls (with a new protestant vison on purgatory, whit a lot of C.S. Lewis, which I actually liked the most and which sounded most logical to me >> disadvantage: this part has the fewest literal bible text that plead for it, but could be very well true in context of the larger story of the bible when you think logically about it) all three had good points and weaker points.
The first conclusion of this book for me is that I still don’t know what to think about hell, although the visions of Parry and Walls had me wondering the most and I might read more about their theories in the future. Especially universalism made me curious for more, though I found myself agreeing/making notes most in Walls’ part of the book.
The second conclusion is that I like the concept of this book. It’s actually a series of the Zondervan publisher called ‘counterparts’ with a lot of difficult subjects, in which different people discuss different viewpoints with each other (with respect, love that!). Would be cool if this kind of books were also available on non-biblical subjects. I think it’s so enriching to learn about different visions in one book!
The third conclusion is: talk about taboos and dare to dive into the matter, dare to say that you don’t know the answers, that things are not always clear, about the difficult sides of subjects, about doubts. After reading this book and also another ([b:Four Views on Heaven|54287587|Four Views on Heaven|John S. Feinberg|https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1619568484l/54287587._SY75_.jpg|84714240]), I had a really good open conversation with a group of teenagers (i work in that church now (: ) about afterlife (they actually did have a quite black and white view, which I tried to nuance and challenge) and especially about what it means to have a good life in the life we are living right now and how we can bring more of beauty, love, goodness and heaven on this earth. That is what all the talk about afterlife in the end should lead to and that was one point where all contributors agreed on.
davehershey's review
3.0
How could a good God torture people in hell for all eternity?
I grew up with the simple belief that hell was real and lasted forever. Eventually, when I started to think about it, in the midst of questioning lots of beliefs I had been taught, I realized that unending painful punishment seems unjust. What could a finite human possibly do to deserve such a fate? In the midst of thinking about that, I read the Four Views on Hell: First Edition. This book was a huge step for me in realizing that the case from the Bible for such a belief is actually quite flimsy. The defender of the annhilation view, that people in hell cease to exist, made a case that convinced me.
This second edition intrigued me because, unlike the first, in included a chapter on universalism. Since questions about hell still come up often, I thought I'd check out how this debate goes. The first chapter is by Denny Burk, defending the traditional view that humans in hell are there forever and their suffering never ceases. Reading it, I was reaffirmed in my conclusion this is definitely not a true reflection of scripture. Burk argues that even the smallest sin against an infinite God deserves unending punishment. Unfortunately, this is a philosophical idea that began with Anselm in the 1000s and is rooted in medieval feudal thought. Such an assumption is not found in scripture, which is especially unfortunate for Burk who claims a conservative viewpoint that solely rests in scripture. Most of the actual scripture he cites does not support his view, once the assumptions brought into scripture are taken away (the fire of God's punishment may last forever, but fire tends to destroy things and thus this is no evidence people exist in the fire forever). Burk has to make the horrific claim that God actively keeps people in alive (i.e. ensures the fire does not burn them down to nothing) so they can be forever tortured.
The second chapter, by John Stackhouse, argues for annhilationism. He calls it terminal punishment. Basically, evil people go to hell where they are punished for their sins. These punishments last different amounts of time, depending how sinful the people were, then those people cease to exist. Just based on piling up the most scriptures, this argument is strong. When we allow words like destroy, perish and fire to mean what they mean then it seems to be that if people are destroyed in fire, then they no longer exist. Of course, the problem for Stackhouse, and for a book like this and an issue like this, is that there are scriptures that do not seem to teach this. Burk has a view, and the universalist view has a surprising amount.
To me, this kind of begs the question of the entire endeavor - why should we expect the Bible to tell us exactly how the afterlife works? More on that below.
Third, Robin Pary argues for universalism. He affirms Jesus is the only way to God, so his is not a belief that all paths get you there. But he trusts that Jesus will keep reaching out to people until all people freely choose to love in return. Parry's argument rests more on a telling of a grand narrative than any one verse - God created all people, all people sin and all people will be saved. There are hints in some scriptures, with parallels between "all" being sinful and "all" being saved, so all must mean the same in both. Further, Parry asks incisive questions, showing that his view rests more on a broad-brush picture of God. If we see God becoming human in Jesus and not even letting the fact that humans executed God on the cross stop God's love for us, then why should our death stop God's love for us? The best question Parry brings up is the reality that people reject God for lots of reasons. Should people suffer in hell because they rejected a poor picture of God? What if people were given the true picture of who God is?
Parry argues that, given this true picture, eventually alll people choose God. Jerry Walls is not so optimistic. He argues for a purgatory view of hell. His is not the same as Catholic purgatory, instead Walls sees hell as lasting forever (like Burk) but people can choose to come to faith after death (like Parry) though not all will choose this, some will forever choose away from God (unlike Parry). Walls would point to CS Lewis' idea that the door of hell is closed from the inside - God does not send people there, people choose it themselves.
Overall, this book kind of leaves me wondering...how much can we know? Apart from Burk, I think the other three writers make strong cases. They are all valid for Christians. Speaking of that, Stackhouse came across arrogant in his critique of Parry as he kept trumping his Orthodoxy and implying Parry's was not an "orthodox" (within the boundaries of Christian belief) idea. Unfortunately for Stackhouse, some of the very Christians who defined orthodoxy, like Gregory of Nyssa, agree with Parry. So its a valid view. This is one of those issues Christians have always differed on and will always differ on, which means humility is even more vital.
The last time I read this book, I walked away convinced of the annihilation view. This time, I walk away simply saying we can't know. I'm more cynical about our possibility to know such things. What happens after death is a mystery. I think the most we can say for sure is we meet God - God as a relational love of Father, Son and Spirit. This Trinitarian God of love is also a consuming fire. When you meet God and your life is held up to the flames, what is left? Stackhouse would argue, for some people, nothing is left. Parry is hopeful that the smallest bit of good can survive and be redeemed. Walls reminds us that even we who think we are good still have a good bt that needs to be burned away. What about hell? If God floods all existence with God's presence (a presence which is Love, at its core) then is hell just the experience of people who hate not just God but all good things rooted in God - love, light, justice, peace? Can there be a place separated from God when God is all in all?
In my life right now, I am not only uncertain we can know these things, but I am pretty sure they are not the point. The Bible does not exist to give us much knowledge about what happens after death. Instead, the Bible exists to tell us who God is and what God is doing, culminating in the resurrection of Jesus. This shows God is creating a good world, a world as it always intended to be. Do you want to be a part of it? Do you want to contribute to it? What are you doing now? I think those sorts of questions are much more central to the story of God than how exactly the afterlife works.
Overall, I'd say if you're interested in the subject, this is a worthy book to read. If you only know the traditional view, be prepared to learn there are other views that make a lot more sense of both tbe Bible and theological reflection. But if you want to discover which view wins...well, you'll be disappointed. No one view wins. In the end, God wins. And since God is love, then Love Wins (nod to Rob Bell, sorry, couldn't resist).
I grew up with the simple belief that hell was real and lasted forever. Eventually, when I started to think about it, in the midst of questioning lots of beliefs I had been taught, I realized that unending painful punishment seems unjust. What could a finite human possibly do to deserve such a fate? In the midst of thinking about that, I read the Four Views on Hell: First Edition. This book was a huge step for me in realizing that the case from the Bible for such a belief is actually quite flimsy. The defender of the annhilation view, that people in hell cease to exist, made a case that convinced me.
This second edition intrigued me because, unlike the first, in included a chapter on universalism. Since questions about hell still come up often, I thought I'd check out how this debate goes. The first chapter is by Denny Burk, defending the traditional view that humans in hell are there forever and their suffering never ceases. Reading it, I was reaffirmed in my conclusion this is definitely not a true reflection of scripture. Burk argues that even the smallest sin against an infinite God deserves unending punishment. Unfortunately, this is a philosophical idea that began with Anselm in the 1000s and is rooted in medieval feudal thought. Such an assumption is not found in scripture, which is especially unfortunate for Burk who claims a conservative viewpoint that solely rests in scripture. Most of the actual scripture he cites does not support his view, once the assumptions brought into scripture are taken away (the fire of God's punishment may last forever, but fire tends to destroy things and thus this is no evidence people exist in the fire forever). Burk has to make the horrific claim that God actively keeps people in alive (i.e. ensures the fire does not burn them down to nothing) so they can be forever tortured.
The second chapter, by John Stackhouse, argues for annhilationism. He calls it terminal punishment. Basically, evil people go to hell where they are punished for their sins. These punishments last different amounts of time, depending how sinful the people were, then those people cease to exist. Just based on piling up the most scriptures, this argument is strong. When we allow words like destroy, perish and fire to mean what they mean then it seems to be that if people are destroyed in fire, then they no longer exist. Of course, the problem for Stackhouse, and for a book like this and an issue like this, is that there are scriptures that do not seem to teach this. Burk has a view, and the universalist view has a surprising amount.
To me, this kind of begs the question of the entire endeavor - why should we expect the Bible to tell us exactly how the afterlife works? More on that below.
Third, Robin Pary argues for universalism. He affirms Jesus is the only way to God, so his is not a belief that all paths get you there. But he trusts that Jesus will keep reaching out to people until all people freely choose to love in return. Parry's argument rests more on a telling of a grand narrative than any one verse - God created all people, all people sin and all people will be saved. There are hints in some scriptures, with parallels between "all" being sinful and "all" being saved, so all must mean the same in both. Further, Parry asks incisive questions, showing that his view rests more on a broad-brush picture of God. If we see God becoming human in Jesus and not even letting the fact that humans executed God on the cross stop God's love for us, then why should our death stop God's love for us? The best question Parry brings up is the reality that people reject God for lots of reasons. Should people suffer in hell because they rejected a poor picture of God? What if people were given the true picture of who God is?
Parry argues that, given this true picture, eventually alll people choose God. Jerry Walls is not so optimistic. He argues for a purgatory view of hell. His is not the same as Catholic purgatory, instead Walls sees hell as lasting forever (like Burk) but people can choose to come to faith after death (like Parry) though not all will choose this, some will forever choose away from God (unlike Parry). Walls would point to CS Lewis' idea that the door of hell is closed from the inside - God does not send people there, people choose it themselves.
Overall, this book kind of leaves me wondering...how much can we know? Apart from Burk, I think the other three writers make strong cases. They are all valid for Christians. Speaking of that, Stackhouse came across arrogant in his critique of Parry as he kept trumping his Orthodoxy and implying Parry's was not an "orthodox" (within the boundaries of Christian belief) idea. Unfortunately for Stackhouse, some of the very Christians who defined orthodoxy, like Gregory of Nyssa, agree with Parry. So its a valid view. This is one of those issues Christians have always differed on and will always differ on, which means humility is even more vital.
The last time I read this book, I walked away convinced of the annihilation view. This time, I walk away simply saying we can't know. I'm more cynical about our possibility to know such things. What happens after death is a mystery. I think the most we can say for sure is we meet God - God as a relational love of Father, Son and Spirit. This Trinitarian God of love is also a consuming fire. When you meet God and your life is held up to the flames, what is left? Stackhouse would argue, for some people, nothing is left. Parry is hopeful that the smallest bit of good can survive and be redeemed. Walls reminds us that even we who think we are good still have a good bt that needs to be burned away. What about hell? If God floods all existence with God's presence (a presence which is Love, at its core) then is hell just the experience of people who hate not just God but all good things rooted in God - love, light, justice, peace? Can there be a place separated from God when God is all in all?
In my life right now, I am not only uncertain we can know these things, but I am pretty sure they are not the point. The Bible does not exist to give us much knowledge about what happens after death. Instead, the Bible exists to tell us who God is and what God is doing, culminating in the resurrection of Jesus. This shows God is creating a good world, a world as it always intended to be. Do you want to be a part of it? Do you want to contribute to it? What are you doing now? I think those sorts of questions are much more central to the story of God than how exactly the afterlife works.
Overall, I'd say if you're interested in the subject, this is a worthy book to read. If you only know the traditional view, be prepared to learn there are other views that make a lot more sense of both tbe Bible and theological reflection. But if you want to discover which view wins...well, you'll be disappointed. No one view wins. In the end, God wins. And since God is love, then Love Wins (nod to Rob Bell, sorry, couldn't resist).
pelachick's review against another edition
4.0
Very interesting book. Not for the novice but for serious theology students.
More...