By
George W. Sarris
“Historic? I’m not sure it’s too strong a word. I can’t think of anything quite like this!”
That’s how Dr. Jerry Walls described
the second
Rethinking Hell Conference that was held at the prestigious Fuller Theological
Seminary June 18-20.
It
brought together scholars, pastors and laypeople from the US, Canada and as far
away as the UK to discuss an issue that has been the subject of debate and
division during most of the history of the Christian Church:
What happens to sinners
after we die?
Three
very different views have existed from the early church to the present day –
each represented by respected leaders . . . and each claiming the authority of
Scripture for its beliefs.
The
Traditional view states that the righteous will go to heaven, and the wicked
will experience endless, conscious suffering in hell.
With Conditional Immortality, eternal life is conditioned on
salvation, and only some will meet that condition. The saved go to heaven. The rest die, perhaps suffering for some time
after death, until they finally cease to exist. This view is sometimes called Annihilation.
The
third view says that hell is a place where the wicked will be punished, but
that punishment has a remedial purpose.
After a period of time, they will be restored to fellowship with
God. This view is generally called
Universalism or Universal Restoration.
The
conference was sponsored by the Conditionalists, with this year’s theme – “Conditional
Immortality and the Challenge of Universal Salvation.” Five main speakers included recognized
authorities supporting each of the three views.
Oliver
Crisp, Professor of Systematic Theology at Fuller, presented the Traditional
view of hell. “This is an in-house discussion,” he said. “We are
not talking about how people are saved, but how many are saved.” The scope of salvation is wider than often
thought, but the tradition handed down to us teaches that some will be in hell
forever.
Jerry
Walls, Professor of Philosophy and Scholar-in-Residence at Houston Baptist
University, continued the Traditional view, stating that some will suffer
forever in hell on the conviction that mankind has an inviolable free will.
“We cannot
entirely eliminate the possibility that some will choose to harden themselves
in sin for all eternity,” said Walls, author of Heaven, Hell and Purgatory: Rethinking the Things that Matter Most.
David
Instone-Brewer, Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and the New Testament in
Cambridge, UK, presented the Conditionalist view by examining Jewish literature
dating from before, during and after the time of Christ. He said that in the Qumran community,
punishments were followed by destruction.
Professor
of Philosophy and Religion at Taylor University, Jim Spiegel presented the
philosophical case for Conditionalism.
He described six philosophical problems with the Traditional view and
suggested that Universalism was more problematic from a Biblical perspective.
Spiegel
said that if hell continues forever, evil continues forever. The annihilation of the wicked brings a
permanent end to evil.
Describing
himself as an Evangelical Universalist, Robin Parry, PhD in Old Testament from
the University of Gloucestershire and editor for theological publications at
Wipf & Stock Publishers, likened the creation/redemption story to a puzzle
where the piece describing hell doesn’t quite fit in with a loving,
all-powerful God. He described hell as a
hospital where God annihilates evil, not evil-doers.
“God doesn’t
create trash,”
said Parry, author of The Evangelical
Universalist, “and He doesn’t trash
what He created.”
I
had the privilege of speaking at one of 16
breakout sessions that offered
attendees an opportunity to participate in smaller groups. The sessions representing one view were held
simultaneously so people could hear arguments for all three.
Topics
ranged from “The Biblical Tour of Hell” . . . to “An Orthodox/Catholic
Eschatology: the Hopeful Inclusivism of Hans Urs von Balthasar and Metropolitan
Kallistos Ware” . . . to “Is God Creation’s Biggest Loser?”
A
gracious and humble spirit was evident with each of the main speakers, the
breakout session speakers and with the participants. It was clearly felt by all
who attended.
What
was most amazing to me was the number of people – from speakers to conference
organizers to participants – who admitted that they had been challenged by what
was said to rethink their view of hell . . . which, after all, was what the
conference was all about.
Several
said they had been unaware that a prominent belief in the early Church was that
God would ultimately restore all of creation.
A
number mentioned that they had never heard a Biblical case for universal
salvation.
Almost
all agreed that a belief in the ultimate restoration of all was not outside the
bounds of faith.
And
several acknowledged that they were “hopeful” that it was true.
Traditionalist
Jerry Walls ended the conference with these words, “Universalism is the best story.
It’s the only one where true, lasting bliss pervades. It’s the only one with a perfect ending.”
